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

CERTIFICATION 

             I,JEFFREY D. SERKES, certify that: 

             1.   Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of THE POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY. 

             2.   Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 

             3.   Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 

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

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

                  b)   Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and 

                  c)   Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 

             5.   Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): 

                  a)   Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and 

                  b)   Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 173 (Friday, September 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20529]



[[Page 51804]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL07-68-001]


NSTAR Electric & Gas Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing

August 28, 2008.
    Take notice that on August 7, 2008, NSTAR Electric & Gas 
Corporation filed a revised Explanatory Statement and Offer of 
Settlement in compliance with the Commission's directive in the July 
24, 2008 Order.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fdbbb8afbeb29391949398ae888d8d928f89bd9b988f9ed39a928b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e2a4a7b0a1ad8c8e8b8c87b19792928d9096a284879081cc858d94">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 8, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20529 Filed 9-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51340-51341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20197]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

[Docket Number: 2008 0084]


Application of Foreign Underwriters To Write Marine Hull 
Insurance

    The Maritime Administration has received an application under 46 
CFR part 249 from Codan Forsikring A/S, a Denmark based underwriter, to 
write Marine hull insurance on vessels guaranteed under 46 U.S.C. 
Chapter 537 (formerly Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as 
amended).
    In accordance with 46 CFR 249.7(b), interested persons are hereby 
afforded an opportunity to bring to the Maritime Administration's 
attention any discriminatory laws or practices relating to the 
placement of marine hull insurance which may exist in the applicant's 
country of domicile.
    You may submit comments regarding this information collection by 
any of the following methods:
    a. Web Site: www.regulations.gov Following the instructions for 
submitting comments on the electronic docket site.
    b. Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room PL-401, Washington, 
DC 20590-0001.
    c. Hand Delivery: Room PL-410 of the Department of Transportation, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. Between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

[[Page 51341]]

    d. Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the outline instructions.
    Instruction: All submissions must include the agency name and the 
docket number for this rulemaking. Note that all comments received will 
be posted without change to http://wwww.regulations.gov including any 
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under 
Regulatory Notices.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to 
Room PL-401 of the Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Dated: August 26, 2008.

    By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Leonard Sutter,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-20197 Filed 8-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Larry Street, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.), rendered February 3, 1988, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that the People disproved the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Reed,*40 NY2d 204). At trial, the defendant contended that the victim had attacked him by hitting him in the head with a hammer. However, the People presented testimony that the victim merely struck the defendant with his bare hands. A physician also testified that the defendant’s injuries were inconsistent with having been struck by a hammer. In addition, the hammer was found to contain no sign of blood, hair, or skin.

Although the defendant presented a plausible defense, the jury apparently credited , the evidence offered by the prosecution. Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94; *People v Martinez,*149 AD2d 438). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Martinez, supra; People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88).

*347Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). Lawrence, J. P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1997             SEP-04-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1996             DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1997             SEP-04-1998
<CASH>                                          24,243                   4,454
<SECURITIES>                                         0                  18,116
<RECEIVABLES>                                  149,668                 142,961
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,948                   2,738
<INVENTORY>                                      4,190                   4,786
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               189,393                 183,136
<PP&E>                                          46,430                  46,210
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,685                  30,099
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 324,196                 310,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          102,794                 108,014
<BONDS>                                         25,019                  15,476
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        75,341                  71,126
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,288                  62,683
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   324,196                 310,293
<SALES>                                      1,001,889                 694,904
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,001,889                 694,904
<CGS>                                          877,016                 610,936
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  877,016                 610,936
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                97,551                  81,369
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   885                     480
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,897                   1,817
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,540                     302
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,807                   5,085
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,733                 (4,783)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,733                 (4,783)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.17                   (.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.12                   (.38)
        

</TABLE>
#### L. & L. FREIGHT LINES, Inc., v. Secretary of State of Florida. DOUGLASS et al.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 16, 1936.

Leo P. Kitchen and Dan R. Schwartz, both of Jacksonville, for petitioner.

DAVIS, Justice.

While a motor common carrier claiming bona fide the benefits of subparagraph (b) of section 206 of the Federal Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (title 49, U.S.Code Annotated, §§ 301 to *327,*both inclusive, 49 U.S.Statutes 543), to continue its already begun interstate commerce haulage operations until its pending application to the Interstate Commerce Commission for a permanent certificate of convenience and necessity has teen heard, considered, and decided pursuant to applicable United States statutes and regulations, possesses a federal statutory right amounting to a federal status that is entitled to legal and equitable protection in appropriate litigation [L. & L. Freight Lines, Inc., v. Douglass (Fla.) 169 So. 370, decided June 26, 1936], yet such federal right is of transient and temporary character only until the permanent status of the applicant under subparagraph (b) of section 206, supra (49 U.S.C.A. § 306 (b), has been duly investigated and finally decided by the Interstate Commerce Commission according to applicable United States law, so there is no duty on the Florida Railroad Commission to grant its own certificate of public convenience and necessity for the interstate operation involved until after the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States has finally decided the permanent status of the applicant under federal law.

Therefore the alternative writ of mandamus in this case is denied, without prejudice, however, to the right of the relator to renew its application if and when its permanent status under the Federal 1935 Motor Common Carrier Act has been finally decided.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and ELLIS, TERRELL, BROWN, and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
Sunoco Partners LLC Executive Summary Compensation Sheet for 2005



 Exhibit 10.15 
  
 Sunoco Partners LLC 
 Executive Compensation Summary Sheet 
 for 2005 
  
 The table below presents 2005 summary information for named executive
officers of Sunoco Partners LLC, with regard to: base salary, annual guideline incentive bonus opportunity under the Sunoco Partners LLC Annual Incentive Plan, and long-term incentive awards (restricted units) under the Sunoco Partners LLC Long-Term
Incentive Plan. 
  
 2005 EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION1 
  

							
	 Name and Title

	  	 2005
 Base Salary
 ($)

	  	 Annual Guideline Incentive
Bonus Opportunity
 (%)

	 	 Restricted Units
 (#)


	 Deborah M. Fretz
 President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	440,000	  	65%	 	19,7082
	 Colin A. Oerton
 Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	248,770	  	40%	 	  5,3352
	 Christopher W. Keene
 Vice President, Business Development
	  	235,000	  	40%	 	  4,8722
  2,4363
	 Bruce D. Davis, Jr.
 Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary
	  	219,450	  	30%	 	  3,8982
	 David A. Justin
 Vice President, Eastern Operations
	  	208,500	  	30%	 	  3,6282
	 Paul S. Broker
 Vice President, Western Operations
	  	180,200	  	30%	 	  3,1062

 NOTE TO TABLE: 
  

	 	1.	The base salaries, incentive bonus opportunities and restricted unit grants shown in the table were approved at the January 18, 2005 meeting of the Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors of Sunoco Partners LLC. 

  

	 	2.	Awards of Restricted Units under the Sunoco Partners LLC Long-Term Incentive Plan. Vesting and payout of these awards will depend upon the Partnership achieving certain specified
performance levels based upon objectives for growth in distributable cash and total unitholder return over a restriction period that runs from January 18, 2005 through December 31, 2007. 

  

	 	3.	In connection with his hiring, Mr. Keene was granted a special award of 2,436 Restricted Units (with an aggregate value of $102,629 on the date of grant) under the Sunoco Partners
LLC Long-Term Incentive Plan. The vesting and payout of these Restricted Units is subject only to Mr. Keene’s continued employment with Sunoco Partners LLC during the period from January 18, 2005 through December 31, 2007.
Exhibit 31

          CERTIFICATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE DEPOSITOR WITH FORM 10-K

      Re: Argent Securities Inc.
      Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-W5

I, John P. Grazer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form
10-K of Argent Securities Trust 2006-W5 (the "Exchange Act Periodic Reports");

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, taken as a whole,
do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
this report is included in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB and except as disclosed in the Exchange
Act Periodic Reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the
Pooling and Servicing agreement in all material respects; and;

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be
included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of
noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on
Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company, FIS Tax Services, American Security Insurance Company, Standard
Guaranty Insurance Company and Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.

ARGENT SECURITIES INC.


By: /s/ John P. Grazer
    ---------------------------------
Name: John P. Grazer
Title: Chief Financial Officer

Date: March 26, 2007
#### JOHNSON v. STUDSTILL.

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc.

March 23, 1954.

R. C. Horne, Madison, and H. B. Edwards, Valdosta, Ga., for appellant.

Meginnis, Thompson & Morrison, Tallahassee, and Davis, Davis & McQure, Madison, and Leonard Pepper, of Turnbull & Pepper, Tallahassee, for appellee

BARNS, Justice.

This cause came on before the trial court to be heard upon a motion by defendant, Howard Studstill, for summary judgment in his favor. Studstill was a co-defendant with Carl Townsend. The motion was granted and the plaintiff-appellant appeals from this judgment of dismissal in favor of defendant, Studstill. In this we find error.

Facts.

The suit is one at law sounding in tort growing out of an automobile accident. Some of the affidavits tend to show that the automobile at one time owned by Studstill had been sold to Townsend while a counter-affidavit and a. letter from the Motor Vehicle Commissioner tend to show that the title to a motor vehicle involved in the accident was owned by Studstill.

*252Conclusion.

Common Law Rule 43(c), 30 F.S.A. like Federal Rule 56(c), 28 U.S.C.Á., provides that, in event of a motion for a summary judgment “The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

Judge Fahy, speaking for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Dewey v. Clark, 1950, 86 U.S.App. D.C. 137, 180 F.2d 766 at page 772, summarizes the points to be considered in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, as follows:

> “(1) Factual issues are not to be tried or'resolved by summary judgment procedure; only the existence of a genuine and material factual issue is to be determined. Once it is determined that there is such an issue summary judgment may not be granted; (2) In making . this determination doubts (of course the doubts are- not fanciful) are to -be -resolved against the granting of summary judgment; (3) There may be no genuine issue even though there is a formal issue. Neither a purely formal denial nor, in every case, general allegations, defeat summary judgment. On this point the cases decided by this court must rest on their own facts rather than upon a rigid rule that an assertion and a denial always preclude the granting of summary judgment. Those cases stand for the proposition that formalism is not a substitute for the necessity of a real or genuine issue. Whether the situation falls into the category of formalism or genuineness cannot be decided in the abstract; (4) If conflict appears as to a material fact the summary procedure does not apply unless the evidence on one or the other hand is too incredible ,to bé accepted by reasonable minds or is without legal probative force even if true; (5) To support summary judgment the situation must justify a directed verdict insofar as the facts are concerned.”

Applying the foregoing standards, the judgment appealed is reversed.

TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice, and THOMAS, SEBRING, HOBSON, MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 172 (Thursday, September 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51638-51639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20453]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than September 17, 2008.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Kenneth Binning, 
Director, Regional and Community Bank Group)

[[Page 51639]]

101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:
    1. Murray Pasternack, San Clemente, California, to acquire 
additional voting shares of Capital Bank, San Juan Capistrano, 
California.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 28, 
2008.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-20453 Filed 9-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
```