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

**P&F INDUSTRIES, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Joseph A. Molino, Jr., certify that:

1.           I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of P&F Industries, 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 periods presented in this quarterly 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

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

c)             Disclosed in this quarterly 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 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 that 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.

| November  10, 2006 |   | /s/ JOSEPH A. MOLINO, JR.    |
|--------------------|--------|------------------------------|
| Date               |   | Joseph A. Molino, Jr.        |
|               |   | Principal Financial  Officer |

 

----
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice Blewett (Impleaded), Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 50,199.

First District, Second Division.

September 27, 1966.

Rehearing denied October 19, 1966.

*282James M. Trapp, of Chicago, for appellant; Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Matthew J. Moran, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE BURKE.

Not to be published in full.
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 47191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18687]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 8, 2008.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Todd Offerbacker, Assistant 
Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. LeaderOne National, Inc., Overland Park, Kansas; to become a 
bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 
Signature Bank KC, Haddam, Kansas.
    In connection with this application, Applicant also has applied to 
acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of LeaderOne Financial 
Corporation, Overland Park, Kansas, and thereby engage in mortgage 
banking pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice 
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. McCamey Financial Corporation, Odessa, Texas; to acquire 100 
percent of First National Monahans Bancshares, Inc., Monahans, Texas, 
and indirectly acquire Monahans Delaware Financial Corporation, 
Wilmington, Delaware, and First National Bank of Monahans, Monahans, 
Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 8, 
2008.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-18687 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
```
II

Calendar No. 176

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 614

[Report No. 104–132]

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the State of Minnesota

the New London National Fish Hatchery production facility.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 8 (legislative day, JUNE 5), 1995

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

Public Works

AUGUST 7 (legislative day, JULY 10), 1995

Reported by Mr. CHAFEE, without amendment

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the

State of Minnesota the New London National Fish

Hatchery production facility.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF NEW LONDON NATIONAL

4 FISH HATCHERY PRODUCTION FACILITY.

5 (a) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—Notwithstanding

6 any other provision of law and within 180 days after the
2

HR 614 RS

1 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the

2 Interior shall convey to the State of Minnesota without

3 reimbursement all right, title, and interest of the United

4 States in and to the property comprising the New London

5 National Fish Hatchery production facility, located out6 side of downtown New London, Minnesota, including—

7 (1) all easements and water rights relating to

8 that property, and

9 (2) all land, improvements, and related personal

10 property comprising that production facility.

11 (b) USE OF PROPERTY.—All property and interests

12 conveyed under this section shall be used by the Minnesota

13 Department of Natural Resources for the Minnesota fish14 ery resources management program.

15 (c) USE AND REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—The prop16 erty conveyed to the State of Minnesota pursuant to this

17 section shall be used by the State for purposes of fishery

18 resources management, and if it is used for any other pur19 pose all right, title, and interest in and to all property

20 conveyed pursuant to this section shall revert to the Unit21 ed States. The State of Minnesota shall ensure that the

22 property reverting to the United States is in substantially

23 the same or better condition as at the time of transfer.

Passed the House of Representatives June 7, 1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

Calendar No. 176

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 614

[Report No. 104–132]

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to

Fish Hatchery production facility.the State of Minnesota the New London National

AUGUST 7 (legislative day, JULY 10), 1995

Reported without amendment
#### In the Matter of the Application of Ira E. Betts, Late of the Town of Delhi, Deceased, by Minnie H. Betts, as Executrix, etc., of said Ira E. Betts, Deceased, and as Property Owner, to Alter and Lay Out a New Highway in the Town of Delhi, Delaware county, New York, and the Assessment of Damages Therefor.

—Motion denied. Appellant may serve case within sixty days.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6153 

To provide that the final rule of the Department of Homeland Security 

entitled ‘‘Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds’’ shall have the full 

force and effect of law, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2021 

Mr. DESJARLAIS (for himself, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. BABIN, Mrs. 

HARSHBARGER, and Mr. JACKSON) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide that the final rule of the Department of Homeland Security entitled ‘‘Inadmissibility on Public Charge 

Grounds’’ shall have the full force and effect of law, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Common Sense Stand5 ards for Visa Applicants Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LEGAL EFFECT OF FINAL RULE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The final rule of the Department 

8 of Homeland Security entitled ‘‘Inadmissibility on Public 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6153 IH

1 Charge Grounds’’ (84 Fed. Reg. 41292, August 14, 2019) 

2 shall have the full force and effect of law. 

3 (b) CONFORMING CHANGE.—The final rule of the 

4 Department of Homeland Security entitled ‘‘Inadmis5 sibility on Public Charge Grounds; Implementation of 

6 Vacatur’’ (86 Fed. Reg. 14221, March 15, 2021) shall 

7 have no force or effect. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
1 The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-4032

___________ Charles Pointer, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: September 26, 2006 Filed: September 26, 2006

___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Charles Pointer appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his Title VII suit claiming race and sex disc rimination, and the court’s denial of his postjudgment motions. We affirm.
First, the district court did not ab use its discretion in denying Pointer’s discovery motions. See Stanback v. Best Diversified Prods., Inc. , 180 F.3d 903, 911 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review for de nial of motion for continuance under Fed.-2- R. Civ. P. 56(f)); Lee v. Armontrout , 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (standard of review for deni al of motion to compel di scovery). Second, upon de novo review, see Evers v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc. , 241 F.3d 948, 953 (8th Cir. 2001), we conclude Pointer did not present evidence de monstrating that he was qualified for the position for which he applied. SeePope v. ESA Servs., Inc. , 406 F.3d 1001, 1006 (8th Cir. 2005) (burden-shifting framework ); Mayer v. Nextel W. Corp. , 318 F.3d 803, 809 (8th Cir. 2003) (“Evidence, not contentions, avoids summary judgment.”); Caviness v. Nucor-Yamato Steel Co. , 105 F.3d 1216, 1223 (8th Cir. 1997) (to establish prima facie case under Title VII for discriminatory failure to hire, plaintiff must be able to prove, inter alia, that he applied and wa s qualified for positi on for which employer was seeking applicants). Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pointer’s postjudgment motions. See Arnold v. Wood , 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for de nial of Fed. R. Ci v. P. 60(b) motion); Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills , 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review for denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion).
Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Pointer’s appellate motion for sanctions.

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 698 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 698

 To repeal the prohibitions relating to semiautomatic assault weapons 
             and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 1995

 Mr. Bartlett of Maryland (for himself, Mr. Chapman, and Mr. Stockman) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal the prohibitions relating to semiautomatic assault weapons 
             and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Bartlett/Chapman/Stockman Assault 
Weapon Ban Repeal Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT 
              WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

    (a) Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking subsections (v) and (w) and by striking the appendix.
    (b) Section 921(a) of such title is amended by striking paragraphs 
(30) and (31).
    (c) Section 923(i) of such title is amended by striking the last 2 
sentences.
    (d) Section 924(a)(1)(B) of such title is amended by striking 
``(r), (v), or (w)'' and inserting ``or (r)''.
    (e) Section 924(c)(1) of such title is amended by striking ``short-
barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon,'' and inserting ``or 
short-barreled shotgun''.
    (f) Section 110104 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
Act of 1994 (18 U.S.C. 921 note) is hereby repealed.
                                 <all>
```
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00483-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF I.B.M., Z.A.M., and B.M.

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-PA-00977

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 15, 2010

DISMISSED

A filing fee of $175.00 was due from appellant Benjamin Martinez when this appeal was 

filed but the fee was not paid. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207(b)(1), 51.941(a)(1) 

(Vernon 2005); Texas Supreme Court Order Regarding Fees Charged In Civil Cases In the 

Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals (July 21, 1998) § B.1.(a). Rule 5 of the Texas Rules 

of Appellate Procedure provides:

A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay –

at the time an item is presented for filing – whatever fees are required by statute 

or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order 

that is just.

TEX. R. APP. P. 5. 
04-10-00483-CV

- 2 -

Accordingly, on August 5, 2010, this court ordered appellant to either (1) pay the 

applicable filing fee or (2) provide written proof to this court that he is excused by statute or the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying the fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (providing that 

indigent party who complies with provisions of that rule may proceed without advance payment 

of costs). Our order informed appellant that if he failed to provide such written proof within the 

time ordered, this appeal would be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. Appellant has not 

responded. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Costs of appeal are assessed against 

appellant.

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                              CONSENT OF KPMG, LLP

The Board of Directors
Sonic Solutions

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-66187) on Form S-8 of Sonic Solutions of our report dated May 3, 2001,
except as to note 6, which is as of June 18, 2001, relating to the balance
sheets of Sonic Solutions as of March 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related
statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2001, and the related financial
statement schedule, which report appears in the March 31, 2001 annual report on
Form 10-K of Sonic Solutions.

/s/ KPMG LLP

San Francisco, California
June 25, 2001
Order filed August 6, 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00213

- CV

____________ SHIRLEY A. MITCHELL , Appellant

V. KEVIN DALE GENTRY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 312th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca use No. 2018

- 52902



### O R D E R
Appellant’ s brief was due July 15, 2019

. No brief or motion for extension of
time has been filed.
Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before August 14, 2019 the court will dismiss the appeal for want of pro secution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7642

ROBERT ALLAN PAYNE, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus GENE JOHNSON, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-03-257) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 9, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Allan Payne, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert Allan Payne, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Payne has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EL PASO WATER UTILITIES SYSTEMPUBLIC SERVICE BOARD and THE CITY

OF EL PASO, TEXAS,

Appellants,

v.

ARYAN MARIVANI,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00071-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 7

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2022DCV1432)

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the 

judgment. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order denying Appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction 

and motion to dismiss. We render judgment on behalf of Appellants.

We further order that Appellants recover from Appellee the appellate costs incurred by 

Appellants and all costs incurred in the court below, for which let execution issue. This decision 

shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2023.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-2977

LT Case No. 2020-CF-001101-A 

_____________________________

TODD R. MAGGIO, 

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

_____________________________

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County. 

Joel D. Fritton, Judge. 

Todd R. Maggio, Trenton, pro se. 

No Appearance for Appellee. 

May 14, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

SOUD, KILBANE, and MACIVER, JJ., concur. 
2 

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________