alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Bakers Footwear Group, Inc. (the
Registrant);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: April 29, 2011
    /s/ Charles R. Daniel, IIICharles R. Daniel, IIIExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Controller,

Treasurer and Secretary Bakers Footwear Group, Inc.
| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: November 8, 2010  |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
|                    |   |
| /s/ Stephen J. Sperco   |   |
| Stephen J. Sperco       |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00226-CR

PERRY WAYNE JERDEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court

Wood County, Texas

Trial Court No. 21-398-2011

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Perry Wayne Jerden has filed a document through which he attempts to initiate an out of 

time direct appeal through this Court. We can determine from his filing that he was convicted in 

a jury trial in May 2012. He states that he desired to appeal, but that his appointed attorney did 

not pursue the appeal. He now seeks to do so pro se. 

Under the appellate rules, this Court has jurisdiction over a criminal appeal only if a 

notice of appeal is filed timely—which would be within thirty days of the date sentence is 

imposed (or ninety days if a motion for new trial is timely filed). TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2. 

An out-of-time appeal can be obtained only from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 

through a writ of habeas corpus returnable to that court as authorized by Article 11.07 of the 

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 

2013). To provide such relief is not within our power. As we have no jurisdiction over this 

attempted appeal, we must dismiss.

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: October 29, 2013

Date Decided: October 30, 2013

Do Not Publish
3
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10376 Conference Calendar

JAMES BERNARD MILES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GEORGE PIERSON; MARION, Ms., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:95-CV-105

- - - - - - - - - - August 21, 1996 Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James Bernard Miles (#669417) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous. Miles argues that Ms. Marion failed to seal his envelopes as required by prison procedures, resulting in his outgoing nonlegal letters being lost, stolen, or misplaced. He argues that Ms. Marion failed to notify him pursuant to prison procedures that certain incoming nonlegal mail was being held longer than 48 hours asNo. 96-10376 -2- contraband. He contends that he notified Warden Pierson of the problems with the mail, but Pierson ignored the complaint. Miles has abandoned his claim against Pierson by failing to adequately brief it. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Having reviewed the record and Miles’ brief, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Miles’ complaint as frivolous. The dismissal is affirmed for essentially the reasons stated by the district court. Miles v. Pierson , No. 2:95-CV-0105 (N.D. Tex. March 27, 1996). AFFIRMED.
| (1) | The Report fully complies with      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The information contained in the      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition      and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods      indicated. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                    | /s/      Wang Shu                                                                         |
|---------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Date:    August      14, 2009 | Wang      ShuChief      Financial Officer(Principal      Financial and AccountingOfficer) |

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 5353]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2113]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review Panel for Chemistry; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Site visit of the Centers for Chemical Innovation (CCI) at 
The Georgia Institute of Technology and The University of 
Massachusetts, Proposal Review Panel for Chemistry (<greek-i>1191).
    Dates and Times:
March 8, 2010; 6 p.m.-9 p.m.
March 9, 2010; 8 a.m.-3:30 p.m.
March 10, 2010; 8 a.m.-8 p.m.
    Places: Department of Chemistry, Georgia Institute of 
Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332.
    Department of Chemistry, The University of Massachusetts, 
Amherst, MA 01002.
    Type of Meeting: Part-open.
    Contact Person: Dr. William Brittain, Program Director, 
Chemistry Centers Program, Division of Materials Research, Room 
1055, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, 
VA 22230, Telephone (703) 292-5039.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning Phase II funding.
    Agenda: Monday, March 8, 2010 (Atlanta, GA).
6 p.m.-7 p.m. Closed--Panel Briefing.
7 p.m.-9 p.m. Open--Dinner.
    Tuesday, March 9, 2010 (Atlanta, GA).
8:30 a.m.-12 p.m. Open--CCI Presentation.
12 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Closed--Executive Session/Lunch.
1:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m. Open--CCI Presentation.
2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. Closed--Executive Session.
    Wednesday, March 10, 2010 (Amherst, MA).
8:30 a.m.-12 p.m. Open--CCI Presentation.
12 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Closed--Executive Session/Lunch.
1:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m. Open--CCI Presentation.
2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. Closed--Executive Session.
4:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m. Closed--Executive Session.
    Reason for Closing: The work being reviewed may include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552 b(c), (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: January 28, 2010.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-2113 Filed 2-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1932 

To amend the Small Business Act to increase SBIR and STTR program 

expenditures. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2007 

Mr. BAYH (for himself, Mr. KERRY, Ms. SNOWE, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mr. 

VITTER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to increase SBIR and 

STTR program expenditures. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SBIR AND STTR PROGRAM EXPENDITURES. 

4 (a) SBIR PROGRAM EXPENDITURES.—Section 

5 9(f)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(f)(1)) 

6 is amended by striking subparagraphs (A) through (C) 

7 and inserting the following: 

8 ‘‘(A) not less than 2.5 percent of such 

9 budget in fiscal year 2008; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 1932 IS

1 ‘‘(B) not less than 3.0 percent of such 

2 budget in fiscal year 2009; 

3 ‘‘(C) not less than 3.5 percent of such 

4 budget in fiscal year 2010; 

5 ‘‘(D) not less than 4.0 percent of such 

6 budget in fiscal year 2011; 

7 ‘‘(E) not less than 4.5 percent of such 

8 budget in fiscal year 2012; and 

9 ‘‘(F) not less than 5.0 percent of such 

10 budget in fiscal year 2013 and each fiscal year 

11 thereafter,’’. 

12 (b) STTR PROGRAM EXPENDITURES.—Section 

13 9(n)(1)(B) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

14 638(n)(1)(B)) is amended by striking clauses (i) and (ii) 

15 and inserting the following: 

16 ‘‘(i) not less than 0.3 percent in fiscal 

17 year 2008; 

18 ‘‘(ii) not less than 0.36 percent in fis19 cal year 2009; 

20 ‘‘(iii) not less than 0.42 percent in fis21 cal year 2010; 

22 ‘‘(iv) not less than 0.48 percent in fis23 cal year 2011; 

24 ‘‘(v) not less than 0.54 percent in fis25 cal year 2012; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•S 1932 IS

1 ‘‘(vi) not less than 0.6 percent in fis2 cal year 2013 and each fiscal year there3 after.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          10,283
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                17,131
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            32,187
<LOANS>                                         99,393
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,615
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 164,177
<DEPOSITS>                                     141,620
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,123
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                674
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              109
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,651
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 164,177
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,280
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,254
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   675
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,209
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,227
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,244
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,965
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      195
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,152
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,206
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,206
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       776
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.13
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,075
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    84
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,508
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      189
<RECOVERIES>                                       101
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,615
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6528

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. OWEN ODMAN, a/k/a Charles Llewelyn,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (4:96-cr-00053-LHT-1; 1:04-cv-00044-LHT)

Submitted: October 15, 2008 Decided: November 14, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Owen Odman, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Owen Odman appeals the district court’s order granting
in part and denying in part relief from a pre-filing injunction.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See United States v. Odman , No. 4:96-cr-00053-LHT-1
(W.D.N.C. Mar. 14, 2008). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Hugh Allen SMITH, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 18, 1973.

Clifford L. Walters, Charles A. Williams, Paducah, for appellant.

Carl T. Miller, Jr.^ Department of Highways, Frankfort, Jim Robinson, Paducah, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Conceding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity is not above reproach, in view of Foley Construction Company v. Ward, Ky., 375 S.W.2d 392 (1964), it would appear that the appropriate forum for pursuing the fight against it is the General Assembly. *179See Wells v. Com., Dept. of Highways, Ky., 384 S.W.2d 308 (1964).

The judgment is affirmed.

PALMORE, C. J., and MILLIKEN, OSBORNE, REED, STEINFELD and STEPHENSON, JJ., sitting.

All concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 2, 2018

a0924

Order 

Clerk

October 2, 2018

156796

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 156796

COA: 332966

Wayne CC: 15-009334-FC

JEFFREY ALEXANDER HOGAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 17, 2017 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6168

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LARRY EDWARD THOMPSON, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:04-cr-00305-F-3; 5:08-cv-00075-F)

Submitted: September 16, 2010 Decided: October 4, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Edward Thompson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Edward Thompson, Jr., seeks to appeal the 

district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2010) motion. The orders are not appealable unless 

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Thompson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny his motion for 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 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1940 

To reauthorize the Rio Puerco Watershed Management Program, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 2, 2007 

Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. DOMENICI) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Rio Puerco Watershed Management 

Program, 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 ‘‘Rio Puerco Watershed 

5 Management Program Reauthorization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RIO PUERCO WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PRO7 GRAM. 

8 (a) RIO PUERCO MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE.—Sec9 tion 401(b)(2) of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 1940 IS

1 Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–333; 110 Stat. 

2 4147) is amended— 

3 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (I) through 

4 (N) as subparagraphs (J) through (O), respectively; 

5 and 

6 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (H) the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(I) the Environmental Protection Agen9 cy;’’. 

10 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

11 401(e) of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Manage12 ment Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–333; 110 Stat. 4148) 

13 is amended by striking ‘‘enactment of this Act’’ and in14 serting ‘‘enactment of the Rio Puerco Watershed Manage15 ment Program Reauthorization Act’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
#### Daniel DOMINGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44206.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 2, 1971.

Canales & Garza, by J. A. Canales, Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is robbery by assault; the punishment, ten (10) years.

Appellant’s principal ground of error relates to the failure of the trial court to quash the indictment against the appellant. It is based upon the alleged discrimination against Mexican-Americans on the grand juries in Aransas County. Appellant admits in his brief that three of the twelve grand jurors who returned the indictment against him were Mexican-Americans. He also contends that only eleven persons with Spanish surnames have served upon the grand juries in Aransas County since 1949, though some have served more than once.

Strong reliance is had upon Muniz v. Beto, 434 F.2d 697 (5 Cir.1970). The basic fact of *Muniz,*as we see it, is that there were no persons with Spanish surnames on the jury commission which selected the grand jury, and there were no *269persons with Spanish surnames on the grand jury who returned the indictment against Muniz. With this beginning the Court went back for ten years and developed the fact of the composition of prior grand juries and showed a pattern of discrimination. Without the basic fact, the history would have been of doubtful value. The appellant does not claim systematic inclusion. We overrule his first ground of error. Cassell v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282, 70 S.Ct. 629, 94 L.Ed. 839 (1950); Brooks v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 555, 342 S.W.2d 439 (1960); Brooks v. Beto, 366 F.2d 1 (5 Cir.1966).

Appellant’s second ground of error is that the trial court erred in failing to grant his requested charge that if the jury had a reasonable doubt as to appellant’s intent to rob, they should acquit him of the offense of robbery and find him guilty of simple assault.

.We find the charge given more favorable to appellant than the one requested because it instructed them that if they had a reasonable doubt as to his intent they should acquit appellant and find him not guilty.

His third ground of error relates to his requested Charge #2 which read:

> “You are instructed that if you find from the evidence or you have a reasonable doubt thereof, that at the time of the Defendant’s arrest, he had no knowledge that Terry J. Cody (injured party) was being robbed, then you will acquit him.”

The Court instructed the jury as follows :

> “You are further instructed that if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time and place alleged in the indictment the defendant did make an assault in and upon Terry J. Cody but you further find from the evidence, or you have a reasonable doubt thereof, that the defendant did not then and there have the intent to rob, as that term has been herein defined, then you will acquit the defendant of the offense of robbery by assault, and say by your verdict not guilty.”

We have concluded that the charge given adequately protected appellant’s rights.

The judgment is affirmed.