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, Michael Noble, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Lucky Strike
     Explorations Inc..;

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 August, 2007.


/s/ Michael Noble
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Charles S. Garrison, Relator, v. Isaac E. Pye and Others, as the Town Board of Audit of the Town of Orangetown, Rockland County, New York, Respondents.

—Writ of certiorari dismissed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Hirschberg, P. J., Gaynor, Burr, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 10, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-01567-CV

GHANDI GAY, Appellant

V.

FALCON'S LAIR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-09640

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill

Opinion by Justice Francis

The filing fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this case are past due. By 

postcard dated December 15, 2014, we notified appellant the $195 filing fee was due. We 

directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that 

failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. Also by postcard dated December 15, 

2015, we notified appellant the docketing statement had not been filed in this case. We directed 

appellant to file the docketing statement within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to 

do so might result in dismissal of this appeal. By letter dated February 10, 2015, we informed 

appellant the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for or made 

arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide verification of 

payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or written documentation that appellant 

had been found to be entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that 
–2–

failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, 

appellant has not paid the filing fee, filed the docketing statement, provided the required 

documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of the clerk’s 

record. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5; 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c).

141567F.P05

/Molly Francis/

MOLLY FRANCIS

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

GHANDI GAY, Appellant

No. 05-14-01567-CV V.

FALCON'S LAIR HOMEOWNERS 

ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-09640.

Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Whitehill 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee FALCON'S LAIR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, 

INC. recover its costs of this appeal from appellant GHANDI GAY.

Judgment entered this 10th day of July, 2015.
OFFICE OF ? fy- -gg ;,j 

# THE ATTORNEY 

# GENERAL

AUSTIN.TEXAS

PRICE DANIEL .4TTORNEY GEXERAI. October 7, 1947

State Board of Barber Examiners 202 Brueggerhoff Building Austin, Texas Opinion No.V-401 _I Re: Whether salaries can

be paid out of Item 7 in Appropriation Bill for the State Board of Barber Examiners Attention: Mr. L. R. Holder, Secretary Gentlemen:Yourequest our opinion as to whetner salaries may be paid out of ,Item 7 of your Departmental Appropriation for the biennium of 1947-1948. This item which appears under the neadlng of 94alntenance andMIscellaneous” , reads as follows:

“7. Inspectors and other employees travel expense, shop rent, ofrice rent, orrice expense (stamps, utllities, stationery, telephone, telegraph, equlpment, etc.), court costs, pontlnaen$ services-, bond pre&s, and consumable supplies..$ 23,ooo.oo S 23opo.00” Vol. 6, Vernon’s Texas Session Laws, 50th ieglslature, 1947, p. 821. (Emphasis added) Immediately following this itemization is the statement that:

“Subject to the limltatlons set forth in the provisions appearing at the end of this Act, the foregoing amounts for the State Board of Barber Examiners are hereby appropriated

....vStates Board of Barber Examiners, page 2 (V-401) 2,

the end ofParagraph (1411, of Section 2, appearing at

the Act provides:

“S. Contingent Expenses. None of the funds hereinabove appropriated for ‘contlngent expenses’ or ‘maintenance and miscellaneous’ shall be used for the payment of any salaries unless specifically authorlzed to be paid In the Itemization under the contingent maintenance and miscellaneous Items hereinabove set out and designated therein as ‘salaries ( ‘extra help,’ or
‘seasonal labor. I ‘I IP. 938) It is our oplnion that item 7 of your Appropriation Bill is limited by paragraph (14)f, of Section 2, and that salaries cannot be paid therefrom. There is nothing in the itemization of Item No. 7 to take it out of the category of %aintenance and miscellaneous”

. tingent”

. Item 7, Itself, contains the word “conTheword
~‘services’~ following the word contingent must be held to meanservices other than the payment of salaries, in order to harmonize Item 7with paragraph (l&)f, of Section 2. SUMMARY Item 7 of the current appropriation for the State Board of Barber Examiners cannot be used to pay salaries In view of paragraph (14)f of Section 2of the Rider to the Departmental Appropriation Bill. Ch.400, Acts 50th Leg., R. S. 1947, pp. 821, 938. Yours very truly,

FD:mw Fag Dickson Fir Assistant
1 United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 96-11016

Summary Calendar.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Larry Allen RESSLER, Defendant-Appellant.

Sept. 22, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Texas.

Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On March 7, 1996, Ressler, federal prisoner No. 22047-077,

filed the instant 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which was his second.

Ressler argued that his two prior convictions for "house breaking"

were not burglaries and thus not "crimes of violence" as defined

under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). He contended that he had not presented

this claim earl ier because his counsel had not investigated the

nature of the prior con victions and he did not learn of the

statutory definition until after he had filed his first § 2255

motion.

The government answered and arg ued that Ressler was

procedurally barred from raising this issue because he could have

raised it on direct appeal or in his first § 2255 motion but he had

not done so and had not shown either cause or prejudice for the

default. The government further argued that his claim was

meritless because the elements of "house breaki ng" satisfied the2

elements of "generic bu rglary" as defined in T aylor v. United

States, 495 U.S. 575, 599, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 2158-59, 109 L.Ed.2d 607

(1990), and his convictions were thus crimes of violence under §

924(e).

The district court dismis s ed Ressler's successive § 2255

motion because Ressler had not first obtained permission from a

Judge of the Court of Appeals to file a successive § 2255 as

required by the provisions of AEDPA, enacted on April 24, 1996. 28

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). The district court applied the amended

version of § 2244 to Ressler's successive § 2255 motion even though

Ressler filed his motion before the AEDPA was signed.

Ressler timely appeale d and requested this Court to issue a

Certificate of Appealability (COA). This Court granted Ressler a

COA limited to the question of the district court's application of

AEDPA to his pending § 2255 motion. On June 23, 1997, the Supreme

Court issued its opinion in Lindh v. Murphy,

--- U.S. ----, 117

S.Ct. 2059, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997), which establishes the rules and

criteria for determining whether the provisions of AEDPA would be

applied to cases pending prior to the effective date of that Act.

On July 14, another panel of the Fifth Circuit held t hat under

Lindh v. Murphy

the requirement for certification by the Court of

Appeals of a successive application under § 2255 does not apply

because the petitioner's application was pending on April 24, 1996,

the date AEDPA was enacted. W illiams v. Cain

, 117 F. 3d 863 (5th

Cir.1997). Ressler's petition in this case was likewise pending on

the effective date of AEDPA.3

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is VACATED and

this case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings

under the law as it existed prior to the adoption of AEDPA.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES A. KING, D.O.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

PENNSYLVANIA LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY, 

 Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 2:09-cv-13761

Judge John Feikens

Mag. Judge Mark Randon

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

I have before me, Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon’s Report and

Recommendation (“Report”) (Docket #15). In his Report, Magistrate Judge Randon

recommends that I grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff filed an

Objection to the Report, and Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Objection. 

Having considered the arguments set forth by the parties, I find that Magistrate Judge

Randon has thoroughly and correctly analyzed the issues and I agree with his

recommendation. Therefore, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Randon’s Report, GRANT

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and DISMISS the case. 
2

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: April 26, 2010 s/ John Feikens 

John Feikens

United States District Judge

Proof of Service

I hereby certify that the foregoing order was served on

the attorneys/parties of record on April 26, 2010, by

U.S. first class mail or electronic means.

s/Carol Cohron 

Case Manager
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC
FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       2,052,417
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,081,763
<ALLOWANCES>                                    34,245
<INVENTORY>                                  1,832,658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,213,281
<PP&E>                                      25,711,877
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,205,389
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,627,609
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,335,200
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,000,000
<COMMON>                                        56,037
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,931,941
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,627,609
<SALES>                                     37,772,799
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,772,799
<CGS>                                        8,951,465
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               28,802,737
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,176,149
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (964,994)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (263,006)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (701,988)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (701,988)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.34)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4336 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4336

  To restore the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to extend 
existing and expiring contracts under the conservation reserve program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 1, 1996

 Mr. Roberts introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To restore the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to extend 
existing and expiring contracts under the conservation reserve program.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO EXTEND EXISTING AND EXPIRING CONTRACTS UNDER 
              CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM.

    Section 727 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public 
Law 104-180; 110 Stat. 1600), is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4181 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4181

  To provide for increased mandatory minimum sentences for criminals 
              possessing firearms, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 25, 1996

 Mrs. Myrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for increased mandatory minimum sentences for criminals 
              possessing firearms, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASED MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES FOR CRIMINALS 
              POSSESSING FIREARMS.

    Section 924(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
read as follows:
    ``(c)(1)(A) Except to the extent a greater minimum sentence is 
otherwise provided by any other provision of this subsection or any 
other law, a person who, during and in relation to any crime of 
violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or 
drug trafficking crime which provides for an enhanced punishment if 
committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for 
which a person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, 
possesses a firearm shall, in addition to the punishment provided for 
such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime--
            ``(i) be punished by imprisonment for not less than 10 
        years;
            ``(ii) if the firearm is discharged, be punished by 
        imprisonment for not less than 20 years; and
            ``(iii) if the death of a person results, be punished by 
        the death penalty or by imprisonment for not less than life.
    ``(B) If the firearm possessed by a person convicted under this 
subsection is a machinegun or a destructive device, or is equipped with 
a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, such person shall be sentenced 
to imprisonment for not less than 30 years.
    ``(C) In the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this 
subsection, such person shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less 
than 25 years, and if the firearm is a machinegun or a destructive 
device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to 
life imprisonment without release.
    ``(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall 
not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person convicted 
of a violation of this subsection, nor shall the term of imprisonment 
imposed under this subsection run concurrently with any other term of 
imprisonment including that imposed for the crime of violence or drug 
trafficking crime in which the firearm was possessed.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF DAN RIVER INC. AS OF DECEMBER 28, 1996 (RESTATED)
AND THE RELATED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 28, 1996 (RESTATED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                           5,042
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,782
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     72,493
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               140,235
<PP&E>                                         274,698
<DEPRECIATION>                                  99,348
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 321,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,944
<BONDS>                                        162,478
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            9,726
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           141
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,757
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   321,050
<SALES>                                        379,567
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               379,567
<CGS>                                          307,383
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  307,383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (428)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,256
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,570
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,686
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,686
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.40
        

</TABLE>