alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 31.02

                     RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael L. Pungello, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this 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 to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

   a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
   disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
   ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
   consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
   entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
   prepared;

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

   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 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: November 14, 2005
-----------------------

By /s/ MICHAEL L. PUNGELLO
   -----------------------
Michael L. Pungello
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### Robert H. Vincent, Respondent, v Sharon L. Vin*1051cent, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Oswego County, for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: Upon completion of cross-examination of plaintiff, who was the sole witness, the court recessed and conferred with counsel in Chambers. Following that conference, the court rendered a bench decision granting a divorce to plaintiff, distributing the property of the parties, and directing that findings and a proposed decree be submitted to the court. No written agreement was placed in evidence, no stipulation was made a part of the record, and the court failed to dispose of the counterclaim. Because defendant was not afforded the opportunity to testify or to present evidence in support of her counterclaim, she was denied a fair trial. Accordingly, we remit this matter for a new trial. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Oswego County, O’Donnell, J.—divorce.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 72 (Friday, April 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19078-19079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9134]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management; Alaska
[AK-962-1410-00-P and AA-16670]


Alaska Native Claims Selection; Notice

    In accordance with Departmental regulation 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice 
is hereby given that a decision will be issued to Cook Inlet Region, 
Inc., approving the subsurface estate of coal, oil, and gas for 
conveyance under the provisions of Sec. 14(f) of the Alaska Native 
Claims Settlement Act of December 18, 1971, 43 U.S.C. 1601, 1613(f), 
Sec. 12(b)(2) of the Act of January 2, 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1611n, and Par. 
I.B.(2)(a) of the Terms and Conditions for Land Consolidation and 
Management in the Cook Inlet Area, as clarified August 31, 1976. The 
subsurface estate approved for conveyance contains 6,012.30 acres, 
located in T. 9 N., R. 8 W., Seward Meridian, Alaska, within the 
boundaries of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge.
    Notice of the decision will be published once a week, for four (4) 
consecutive weeks, in the Anchorage Daily News. A copy of the decision 
may be obtained by contacting the Alaska State Office of the Bureau of 
Land Management, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, Alaska 99513-
7599 ((907) 271-5960).
    Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected 
by the decision, an agency of the Federal government, or a regional 
corporation, shall have until May 15, 1995 to file an appeal. However, 
parties receiving service by certified mail shall have 30 days from the 
date of receipt to file an appeal. Appeals must be filed in the Bureau 
of Land Management at the [[Page 19079]] address identified above, 
where the requirements for filing an appeal may be obtained. Parties 
who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR 
Part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights.
Margaret J. McDaniel,
Acting Chief, Branch of Gulf Rim Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 95-9134 Filed 4-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-M
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Michael D. Queen, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Universal Capital Management, Inc.;

2.

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

3.

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

4.

The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 report is being prepared;

(b)

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

(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 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(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (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:  December 18, 2008
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-2018-0025-7533

Global Trade Works, 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
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

BRIAN CARL RICHARDS,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-412

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 16, 2016 

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Orange County,

Greg A. Tynan, Judge.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and 

Sean Kevin Gravel, Assistant Public 

Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Andrea K. Totten, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Orange v. State, 983 So. 2d 4, 5-6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (noting 

that when defendant who agrees to appear at sentencing as part of plea is prevented 

from appearing in court by an arrest, fact of arrest standing alone cannot justify finding 

that defendant willfully failed to appear; however, when it is established that defendant 
2

committed new criminal offense after entering plea, and defendant’s incarceration on the 

new charge causes failure to appear, defendant’s failure to appear can be considered a 

willful and material breach of an agreement to appear because it was caused by his willful 

act of committing the crime).

LAWSON, C.J., EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
32.1



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Quarterly  Report of B Green Innovations, Inc. Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify, pursuant  to and solely for the
purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge:



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: April 29, 2014 | By: | /s/ Jerome Mahoney                                            
|-------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |     | Jerome Mahoney                                                
|                     |     | President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Daryl INGE, Appellant. Daryl INGE, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 66717, 70176.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Nov. 12, 1996.

Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Kurt U. Schaefer, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before RHODES RUSSELL, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals after sentencing for forcible sodomy and denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment. We affirm the conviction, Rule 30.25(b), and denial of Rule 29.15 relief, Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors 

First State Bancorporation: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe registration statements (No. 333-17727) on Form S-3, and (No. 333-3048, No. 333-92795, No. 333-83132, No. 333-107061, No. 333-131642, and No. 333-145816) on Form S-8 of First State Bancorporation of our report datedMarch 14, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of First State Bancorporation and subsidiary as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, stockholders’equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, which reports appear in the December 31, 2007,annual report on Form 10-K of First State Bancorporation. 

Our report with respect to the above consolidated financial statements refers to a change inaccounting for share-based payment transactions effective January 1, 2006. 

KPMG LLP 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

March 14, 2008
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-2018-0025-3830

Academy, Ltd:

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 4.6

 

THIRD AMENDMENT

TO THE

ALLSTATE 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN

 

Subsection 4.1 of the Allstate 401(k) Savings Plan is hereby amended effective for Plan Years commencing on or after January 1, 2011, to read as follows:

 

4.1           Amount of Employer Contributions.  The aggregate amount of “Employer Contributions” to the Plan for each Plan Year shall be an amount equal to the sum of the Participation Share Contribution and the Performance Share Contribution made on behalf of all Eligible Participants (as defined in subsection 7.5) for that Plan Year.

 

a.         The amount of the “Participation Share Contribution” made on behalf of each Eligible Participant is equal to $.40 for each $1.00 of Basic Pre-Tax Deposits made during that Plan Year by such Eligible Participant who is entitled to receive the Participation Share Contribution for that year under subsection 7.5; plus

 

b.         The amount, if any, of each Eligible Participant’s “Performance Share Contribution” for the Plan Year shall be determined by the Company in its sole discretion.  The amount of the Performance Share Contribution per dollar of Participation Share Contribution for any Plan Year shall be the same for all Eligible Participants.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum amount of Performance Share Contributions that the Company may authorize for any Plan Year shall not exceed $.40 for each $1.00 of Basic Pre-Tax Deposits made during that Plan Year by such Eligible Participants who are entitled to receive the Performance Share Contribution for that year under subsection 7.5; and

 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a Participant terminates employment on or after January 1, 2011 and prior to February 1, 2011 and is an Eligible Participant (as defined in subsection 7.5) for the Plan Year commencing on January 1, 2011, then such Eligible Participant shall be entitled to have an Employer Contribution credited to his Account for the Plan Year commencing on January 1, 2011 in an amount that shall be no less than the Participation Share Contribution that would have been credited to such Eligible Participant’s Account for such Plan Year under the terms of the Plan in effect immediately prior to the adoption of this amendment.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7326]



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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
[FEMA-1008-DR]


California; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA].

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of California (FEMA-1008-DR), dated January 17, 1994, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Pauline C. Campbell, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, effective this 
date and pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive Order 12148, I 
hereby appoint William C. Tidball of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Office for this declared 
disaster.
    This action terminates my appointment of Frank L. Kishton as 
Federal Coordinating Office for this disaster.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster 
Assistance)
James L. Witt,
Director.
[FR Doc. 95-7326 Filed 3-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-M
mits1ex1021.htm - Generated by SEC Publisher for SEC Filing


 






1






 






2






 






3






 






4






 






5






 






6






 






7






 






8






 






9






 






10
#### KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Jesse C. CRENSHAW, Respondent.

No. 89-SC-873-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Dec. 21, 1989.

Raymond Clooney, Frankfort, for complainant.

John R. Leathers, Lexington, for respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

STEPHENS, Chief Justice.

Following a complaint and investigation, the Kentucky Bar Association charged Jesse C. Crenshaw, an attorney, with neglecting a legal matter which had been entrusted to him, and engaging in unprofessional and unethical conduct which tends to bring the bench and Bar into disrepute.

Respondent, Jesse C. Crenshaw, entered a plea of guilty to the charges and made a *519Motion that he receive a public reprimand. The Kentucky Bar Association does not oppose the Motion. We agree that a public reprimand is appropriate.

Crenshaw filed a personal injury action on behalf of Nancy Russell with the Mercer Circuit Court in 1984. The injuries sustained by Ms. Russell arose as a result of a one car accident in which she was the passenger. Respondent was served with a set of interrogatories and a request for production of documents in January, 1986. In May, 1986 (three months after those discovery matters should have been answered), Mr. Crenshaw was ordered by the Mercer Circuit Court to file a response. He failed to do so and a Motion to Dismiss was filed in December, 1986. Instead of dismissing the case the court entered a second Order requiring the respondent to comply with all discovery requests. The case was dismissed in March, 1987 because Mr. Crenshaw did not comply with the court’s orders. Crenshaw’s conduct constituted neglect of a legal matter entrusted to him in violation of DR 6-101. Specifically, he failed to obey two court orders that discovery be provided, thus resulting in dismissal of his client’s case.

Crenshaw should have immediately informed Ms. Russell that her case had been dismissed, and failed to do so. He finally disclosed the case’s status after repeated inquiry by Ms. Russell. His failure to communicate promptly to Ms. Russell that her case had been dismissed was in violation of an attorney’s general duties to his client and reflects adversely upon his fitness to practice law, in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6).

Therefore, as a result of the aforementioned violations of the Disciplinary Rules, Jesse C. Crenshaw is administered a public reprimand. Respondent shall pay the costs of this proceeding.

All sitting.

All concur except VANCE, J., who dissents.