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

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Kevin Cooksy certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amended Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the small business issuer;

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;

4. The small business issuer’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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this  Report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
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 Annual Report of American Realty Investors, Inc. (the Company), on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Daniel J. Moos President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company (Principal
Executive Officer) and Gene S. Bertcher , Executive Vice President and Interim Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                                                                              
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 31, 2008 |  | /s/    DANIEL J.
MOOS                                                        
|                      |  | Daniel J. Moos President and Chief Operating Officer                         
|                      | 
|Dated: March 31, 2008 |  | /s/    GENE S.
BERTCHER                                                      
|                      |  | Gene S. Bertcher Executive Vice President and Interim 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-2018-0025-7294

Nissan North America, 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
#### Ronald CHANDLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 41034.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 23, 1989.

Ronald Chandler, Moberly, pro se.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Daryl R. Hylton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

*517Before SHANGLER, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and ULRICH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief after a hearing. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

DORIAN E. RAMIREZ NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE
901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS C HRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.
100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR
EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

January 30, 2015

Hon. Laura Hinojosa

District Clerk

100 N Closner

- 1st Floor Edinburg, TX 78539

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13

- 14

- 00150

- CR

Tr.Ct.No. CR

- 3781

- 11

- A Style: Vicente Fabian v. The State of Texas

The judgment of the trial court was DISMISSED by this Court on the 6 th day of

November

, 2014. The mandate is enclosed.

Tex R. App. P. 51.2(a)(1) provides that the clerk of the trial court shall send an acknowledgment to the clerk of the appellate court of the receipt of t he mandate. Please review the requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 51.2(b) regarding the issuance of a capias in cases in which the trial court’s judgment is affirmed and the defendant is not in custody.

Please sign the attached acknowledgment of receipt of t he mandate and submit through the TAMES Records Submission Portal (RSP) as soon as possible.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER: ch

Enc.

cc: Hon. Johnathan T. Ball (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL) Hon. Rene A. Guerra (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)

I hereby a cknowledge receipt of the mandate in cause no. 13

- 14

- 00150

- CR this

________ day of _________________, 201 5

. District/County Clerk,

By :____________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001102939
<NAME> BIOPULSE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                          42,055
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,032
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,435
<INVENTORY>                                     77,094
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               298,936
<PP&E>                                         659,729
<DEPRECIATION>                                  71,892
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,150,145
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          298,717
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         25
<COMMON>                                         7,329
<OTHER-SE>                                     844,074
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,150,145
<SALES>                                      3,107,636
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                        1,163,598
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,789,007
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                155,031
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            155,031
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   155,031
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .023
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .023


</TABLE>
#### E.B. (A Fictitious Name) v. Peter VERNIERO *, Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, Charles R. Buckley, Acting Bergen County Prosecutor; James Mosley, Chief of Police of the City of Englewood, New Jersey Peter Verniero *, Attorney General of The State of New Jersey Appellant

No. 96-5132.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Sept. 17, 1997.

Before SLOVITER, Chief Judge, DECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, AUTO, ROTH, LEWIS, and McKEE, Circuit Judges.

*

(*Amended per Clerk's Order of 7/16/96)

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING

The petition for rehearing filed by appellee in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regutar active service, and no judge who con-curved in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.

Judge Becker would have granted rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5754 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5754

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2024

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the United States courthouse located at 350 W. 1st Street, 
 Los Angeles, California, as the ``Felicitas and Gonzalo Mendez United 
                          States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 350 W. 1st Street, Los 
Angeles, California, shall be known and designated as the ``Felicitas 
and Gonzalo Mendez United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Felicitas and 
Gonzalo Mendez United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 99.2

                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT




General Electric Capital Corporation
JPMorgan Chase Bank, f/k/a The Chase Manhattan Bank, as successor in interest to
            The Fuji Bank and Trust Company, as Trustee
JCP Master Credit Card Trust:

We have examined General Electric Capital Corporation (GE Capital) management's
assertion that the Amended and Restated Monthly Servicer's Certificates for the
JCP Master Credit Card Trust ("Trust") Asset Backed Certificates - Series E
(Class A) fairly present, in all material respects, the servicing information
for JCP Master Credit Card Trust Asset Backed Certificates - Series E (Class A)
for each of the months in the twelve month period ended December 31, 2001, in
conformity and compliance with the terms and conditions as set forth in
Subsection 3.4(c) of the Master Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of
September 5, 1988, and amended by Amendment No. 1 dated as of October 15, 1997,
Amendment No. 2 dated as of October 15, 1999, Amendment No. 3 dated as of June
28, 2002, and Amendment No. 4 dated as of March 2, 2003, and as supplemented by
the Series A, Series B, Series C, Series D and Series E Supplements thereto (the
"Master Pooling and Servicing Agreement"). GE Capital's management is
responsible for the assertion. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on GE
Capital management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
management's assertion and performing such other procedures, as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion.


In our opinion, GE Capital management's assertion referred to above is fairly
stated, in all material respects, in conformity and compliance with the
aforementioned terms and conditions of the Master Pooling and Servicing
Agreement.

As discussed in Exhibit A of Exhibit 99.3 to the Star Receivables Funding, Inc.
Form 10-K/A, the Monthly Servicer's Certificates for each of the months in the
twelve month period ended December 31, 2001 have been restated.

           THIS REPORT IS INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE INFORMATION AND USE OF GE
CAPITAL, THE TRUSTEE, AND JCP MASTER CREDIT CARD TRUST AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE
AND SHOULD NOT BE USED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THESE SPECIFIED PARTIES.


                                    KPMG LLP


    Dallas, Texas
    September 22, 2004
EXHIBIT 8.1

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



















                                                                             155
<PAGE>


                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

1.       IMA Holdings Corp., A British Columbia corporation which does business
         under that name.

2.       IMPSA Resources (BVI) Inc., a British Virgin Islands corporation which
         does business under that name.

3.       Inversiones Mineras Argentinas Inc., a Barbados corporation which does
         business under that name.

4.       IMPSA Resources Corporation, a British Columbia corporation which does
         business under that name.

5.       Inversiones Mineras Argentinas S.A., an Argentina corporation which
         does business under that name.

6.       Minera Imp-Peru S.A., a Peru corporation which does business under that
         name.












                                                                             156
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7882

KENNETH RAY HILL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-02-427-2)

Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 14, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Ray Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr.,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Ray Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The district court

referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended denying

relief, and advised Hill that his failure to file timely objections

to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district

court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning,

Hill failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841,

845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Hill has waived appellate review by failing

to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we

grant Hill’s motion to amend his informal brief, deny Hill’s

motions for appointed counsel and for the production of transcripts

at Government expense, deny a certificate of appealability, and

dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the lim ited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR

. R.

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 97-50300

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANDRE LEVERT POLK, also known as Milton

Johnson, also known as Andre Polk,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(M0-96-CR-135-2)

February 17, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Andre Levert Polk appeals his sentence fo llowing conviction

for aiding and abetting and conspiracy to commit fraud and related

activity in connection with access devices (credit card fraud). He

contends the district court erroneously applied the s entencing

guidelines in determining his sentence and ordered an excessive

amount of restitution. We conclude that the court did not abuse-2-

its discretion in applying § 5K2.3 to depart upwardly from the

guidelines on the basis of psychological injury. S ee United States

v. Wells

, 101 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 1996). Furthermore, the district

court’s f indings regarding the amount of loss attributed to Polk

for purposes of establishing his offense level under § 2F1.1 were

not clearly erroneous. See U .S.S.G. § 2F1.1, comment. (n.8);

United States v. Krenning

, 93 F.3d 1257, 1269 (5th Cir. 1996).

With regard to his other claims of error in sentencing, Polk has

failed to show plain error in the district cour t’s sentencing

determinations, to which he did not object below. S ee United

States v. Calverley

, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).

Finally, Polk has failed to demonstrate abuse of discretion with

respect to the district court’s order of restitution. See United

States v. Ismoila

, 100 F.3d 380, 398-99 (5th Cir. 1996); United

States v. Aubin , 87 F.3d 141, 150 (5th Cir. 1996), c ert. denie d

,

___U.S.___, 117 S. Ct. 965, 136 L. Ed. 2d 850 (1997).

AFFIRMED.
exv10wq



 






EXHIBIT 10.Q




AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE

EL PASO CORPORATION

2005 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN




     WHEREAS, El Paso Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the El Paso Corporation 2005 Omnibus
Incentive Compensation Plan, effective as of May 26, 2005, as amended (the “Plan”);



     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 19.1 of the Plan, the Board of Directors or the “Plan
Administrator” (as defined in the Plan) may from time to time make such amendments to the Plan as
either of them may deem proper and in the best interests of the Company;



     WHEREAS, the Company desires to clarify provisions of the Plan to reflect the intent of the
Board of Directors and the Compensation Committee with respect to adjustments in the number of
authorized shares under the Plan in the event of a Change in Capitalization.



     NOW THEREFORE, the following amendment shall be made to the Plan:



     Section 5.3(a) shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:



     “5.3 Adjustments in Authorized Shares




     (a) In the event of a Change in Capitalization, the Plan Administrator shall make such
adjustments, if any, as it determines are appropriate and equitable to (a) the maximum
number and class of shares of Common Stock or other stock or securities with respect to
which Awards may be granted under the Plan, (b) the maximum number and class of shares of
Common Stock or other stock or securities that may be issued upon exercise of Nonqualified
Options and Incentive Stock Options, (c) the Maximum Annual Employee Grants, (d) the number
and class of shares of Common Stock or other stock or securities which are subject to
outstanding Awards granted under the Plan and the Option Price or exercise price therefor,
if applicable and (e) the Performance Goals. Any such adjustment shall be final, binding
and conclusive on all persons claiming any right or interest under the Plan.”



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment has been executed by the undersigned, thereunto duly
authorized, effective as of October 26, 2006.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	EL PASO CORPORATION	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ Susan B. Ortenstone	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Susan B. Ortenstone	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Its Senior Vice President, Human Resources and	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Administration	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	ATTEST:	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ David L. Siddall
 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Corporate Secretary