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

# ** **

# **CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, David E.Ullman, certify that:

 

1.         Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.;

 

2.         Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.           Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

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

 

a)              Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod 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 thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; 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 thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting; and

 

5.       Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors:

 

a)        Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date:  September 9, 2004 | By:    |   /s/ David E. Ullman |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|----------------------------|--------|
|                          |   | David E.  Ullman           |
|                          |   | Chief  Financial Officer   |

 

1

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6463

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JAMES EDWARD THOMAS, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (3:97-cr-00299-MR-1) 

Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 29, 2009 

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

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Steven Thomas Meier, MEIER LAW, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 James Edward Thomas appeals from the district court’s 

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Thomas, 

No. 3:97-cr-00299-MR-1 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 3, 2009). We deny Thomas’ 

motion for appointment of counsel and 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF RENAL CARE GROUP, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           8,011
<SECURITIES>                                     6,007
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,212
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,475
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,439
<PP&E>                                          52,906
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 171,930
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,249
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           227
<OTHER-SE>                                     116,607
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   171,930
<SALES>                                        151,813
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               151,813
<CGS>                                          104,037
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,037
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,242
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,436
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 591
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,181
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,242
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,939
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,939
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .60
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                       18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Globetel Communications Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three month period ended June 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Thomas Y. Jimenez, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1.   the Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Thomas Y. Jimenez
Thomas Y. Jimenez
Chief Financial Officer
August 16, 2004
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4502

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus MICHAEL BELSER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-04-197) Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: April 18, 2006 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, L. Patrick Auld, Assistant United States Attorney, Kearns Davis, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Belser was found guilty of possession with intent to distribute forty-one grams of cocaine base (“crack”) (Count 1), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Count 2), and possession of firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count 3). Taking into account the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and the factors in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005), the court sentenced Belser under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines to a total sentence of 248 months of imprisonment: 188 months for Count 1, 120 months concurrently on Count 2, and five years (sixty months) to run consecutively for Count 3. On appeal, Belser’s counsel alleges there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Count 3. In his pro se supplemental brief, Belser alleges that his sentence for Count 1 violates Booker . For the reasons that follow, we affirm. First, viewing the evidence as required, Glasser v. United States , 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942), any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of Belser’s conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Burgos , 94 F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th Cir. 1996) (stating standard) . Accordingly, this claim fails.- 3 - Second, we do not find the district court’s sentence relying on Bookerand 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) was unreasonable. Booker , 543 U.S. at 261; United States v. Hughes , 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). “[A] sentence imposed within the properly calculated Guidelines range . . . is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, this claim fails. Accordingly, we affirm Belser’s convictions and sentences. 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
No. 11,819.

#### Sexson *v.*The Board of Commissioners of Greene County.

Filed Jan. 30, 1885;

petition for a rehearing overruled April 1, 1885.

From the Greene Circuit Court.

*S. O. Pickens, S. W. Axtell*and *W. M. Moffett,*for appellant.

*A. G. Cavins, E. H. C. Cazins*and *W. L. Cavins,*for appellee.

Zollars, C. J.

In this action appellant seeks to recover for “ keeping, guarding and taking care of the jail of Greene county, and the prisoners therein confined,” exclusive of the amount allowed for boarding the prisoners. The claim is wholly for services as above stated, and involves no-item of expenditure for the county in the maintenance and furnishing of the jail. The case is in every particular, so far as any legal questions are presented, the same as the case of *Bynum,*v. *Board, etc.,*100 Ind. 90. It was held in that case that sheriffs are not entitled to recover for such services. Upon the authority of that case the judgment of the court below in this is affirmed, with costs. •
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 89 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7649]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                PROGRAM

  Mr. DOLE. So I would say for the information of all Senators, when 
the Senate is reconvened following the Memorial Day recess, we will 
resume consideration of the antiterrorism bill. Under the previous 
consent agreement, amendments are limited to the bill. Therefore 
Senators should be aware that rollcall votes can be anticipated on 
Monday. However, we will have no rollcall votes until--they will not 
begin before 5 o'clock on Monday, June 5. Both Senators Biden and Hatch 
have indicated to both leaders, Democratic and Republican leaders, that 
they will have amendments. There will be votes. And that they will be 
prepared at 11 o'clock on Monday, June 5, to move forward as rapidly as 
possible on the antiterrorism bill.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6700]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        TRIBUTE TO PETE BARBUTTI

 Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Pete 
Barbutti, whose talent, warmth, and generosity is deeply admired and 
appreciated throughout Las Vegas. I rise to pay tribute to Pete, a 
classic entertainer who helped make Las Vegas the entertainment capital 
of the world.
  Born in Scranton, PA, Pete Barbutti began his entertainment career at 
the young age of 11. At once, his musical genius on the accordion and 
percussion was apparent. By high school, it was no wonder he was voted 
``Most Popular Boy'' and ``Class Clown'' for Pete was truly liked by 
all.
  After serving as assistant conductor in the Army Reserves, Pete 
brought his musician-comic flair to Las Vegas, where he formed his own 
group, a music-vocal-comedy quartet called the Millionaires. The group 
quickly became the favorite of many Las Vegas strip celebrities.
  Pete has worked with the best in entertainment including Steve Allen, 
Nat King Cole, Henry Mancini, and Frank Sinatra. Today, he maintains 
high visibility by working clubs, conventions, and fairs throughout the 
United States and Canada, and is famous for his hundreds of appearances 
on television talk shows. He has received countless awards including 
Las Vegas Entertainer of the Year and the Artistic Achievement Award 
from the American Federation of Musicians.
  Aside from his performing brilliance, Pete should be recognized for 
his philanthropic contributions. He played a key role in the success of 
the Take a Senior to Lunch program and has donated numerous hours 
helping seniors of the Las Vegas community.
  I extend my deepest appreciation to Pete Barbutti for graciously 
sharing his talent at the 1995 Senior Fair, and for the many smiles he 
has brought to Nevadans.

                          ____________________
```
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 114 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a double deduction 

for a portion of an individual’s State and local property taxes that 

are in excess of the national average. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

a double deduction for a portion of an individual’s State 

and local property taxes that are in excess of the national 

average. 

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 ‘‘Homeowner’s Tax Re5 lief Act of 2007’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 114 IH

1 SEC. 2. DOUBLE DEDUCTION OF CERTAIN STATE AND 

2 LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part VII of subchapter B of chap4 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 

5 additional itemized deductions for individuals) is amended 

6 by redesignating section 224 as section 225 and by insert7 ing after section 223 the following new section: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 224. DOUBLE DEDUCTION OF CERTAIN STATE AND 

9 LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES. 

10 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an individual, 

11 there shall be allowed as a deduction (in addition to the 

12 deduction allowed under section 164) the excess of— 

13 ‘‘(1) the amount of State and local real prop14 erty taxes paid or accrued with respect to the indi15 vidual’s principal residence (within the meaning of 

16 section 121) within the taxable year, over 

17 ‘‘(2) the amount estimated by the Secretary to 

18 be the average annual amount of State and local 

19 real property taxes for principal residences in the 

20 United States with respect to the calendar year in 

21 which such taxable year begins. 

22 ‘‘(b) INCOME LIMITATION.—No deduction shall be al23 lowed under this subsection for any taxable year in the 

24 case of a taxpayer whose adjusted gross income for such 

25 taxable year exceeds $80,000 ($160,000 in the case of a 

26 joint return).’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

•HR 114 IH

1 (b) DEDUCTION ALLOWED WHETHER OR NOT INDI2 VIDUAL ITEMIZES OTHER DEDUCTIONS.—Subsection (a) 

3 of section 62 of such Code is amended by inserting before 

4 the last sentence the following new paragraph: 

5 ‘‘(21) CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL PROPERTY

6 TAXES.—The deduction allowed by section 224.’’. 

7 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

8 of such part is amended by redesignating the item relating 

9 to section 224 as an item relating to section 225 and in10 serting before such item the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 224. Double deduction of certain State and local property taxes.’’. 

11 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

13 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
<Page>


                                                            [LOGO]

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 15 to Registration
Statement No. 033-71686 of First Fortis Life Insurance Company Separate Account
A on Form N-4, of our report dated February 28, 2003 of First Fortis Life
Insurance Company Separate Account A relating to the financial statements as of
and for the year ended December 31, 2002, appearing in the Statement of
Additional Information, which is a part of such Registration Statement, and to
the reference to us under the headings "Experts" in such Statement of Additional
Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
December 4, 2003
#### RICHARDS, Appellant, v. STEWART et al.

Division Two,

December 24, 1904.

For the reasons given in Sharp to use v. Stewart, ante, p.- 518 . of this volume, the judgment in this case is affirmed.

Appeal from Pike Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *D. II. Eby,*• Judge.

Affirmed.

*George W. Emerson:*for appellant.

*Elliott W. Major*for respondents.

GANTT, P. J.

This is an appeal from the Pike circuit court. The action is ejectment in statutory form. The issues involved in this case and the evidence adduced are exactly the same as those in Evelyn Sharp, to the use of Richards, appellant, v. Anna B. Stewart et al., respondents, heard and decided at this term in an opinion handed down by Judge Pox. [Ante, p. 518 of this volume.] .

The circuit court in this, as in that case, set aside the sheriff’s sale upon which plaintiff seeks to maintain this action. The controlling question involved is whether Mrs. Stewart had and has a homestead exempt from the levy on plaintiff’s debt. As all the facts are fully set forth in Sharp, to the use of Richards, v. Stewart et al., reference can be had to them.

For the reasons given by Pox, J., in the decision in the last-mentioned companion case with this, we hold that the title to the homestead in question vested in Mrs. Stewart in 1885 by virtue of a devise from her father; that the debt, to which it is sought to subject *534this land, accrued in 1893; that the subsequent partition in 1898 did not create any title in her, but merely segregated and set off to her by specific boundaries, the lands she had received by devise from her father; that she and her husband and children had been in the actual occupancy of the lands for nearly two years prior to the levy and sale under which plaintiff claims; that she was accordingly entitled to a homestead therein as against the plaintiff in said execution and the purchaser at said sale, and the judgment of the circuit court was right and mpst be and is affirmed.

*Fox, J.,*concurs; *Burgess, J.,*absent.
577 A.2d 839

#### IN THE MATTER OF SAMUEL KONIGSBERG, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

August 21, 1990.

As Corrected Sept. 19, 1990.

ORDER

The Office of Attorney Ethics having advised this Court that SAMUEL KONIGSBERG of NORWOOD, who was admitted to *68the bar of this State in 1981, pleaded guilty to making a false statement to an agency of the United States in violation of 18 *U.S.C.A.*1001, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that pursuant to *R.*1:20-6(b)(1), SAMUEL KONIGSBERG is temporarily suspended from the practice of law pending the final resolution of ethics proceedings against him, effective immediately and until the further order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that SAMUEL KONIGSBERG be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension; and it is further

Ordered that SAMUEL KONIGSBERG comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with suspended attorneys.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1119 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1119

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and eight

                                 An Act

 
   To amend title 36, United States Code, to revise the congressional 
 charter of the Military Order of the Purple Heart of the United States 
   of America, Incorporated, to authorize associate membership in the 
  corporation for the spouse and siblings of a recipient of the Purple 
                              Heart medal.

    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 ``Purple Heart Family Equity Act of 
2007''.
SEC. 2. ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP IN THE MILITARY ORDER OF THE PURPLE HEART 
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED.
    Section 140503(b) of title 36, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``parents and lineal descendants'' and inserting ``the 
parents, spouse, siblings, and lineal descendants''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```