alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Steven Purcell,certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Alternative Resources Corporation;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this quarterly 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 circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

 

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15eand 15d-15e) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

(b)         Evaluated theeffectiveness 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 evaluations; and

 

(c)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

 

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:   November 14, 2003 |   |       /s/ Steven  Purcell |
|--------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                           |   | Steven Purcell                                          |
|                           |   | Chief Financial Officer                                 |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          21,103
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,452
<ALLOWANCES>                                       601
<INVENTORY>                                     16,772
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,282
<PP&E>                                         207,625
<DEPRECIATION>                                  50,202
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 238,559
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,251
<BONDS>                                              0<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           22,674
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (16,087)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   238,559
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               495,377
<CGS>                                          380,296
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  475,389
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,957
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,046
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,942
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,942
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,942
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>NOT SEPARATELY IDENTIFIED IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OR
ACCOMPANYING NOTES THERETO.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-3509

___________

Paris Marshall Wheeler, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Iowa State Penitentiary; Warden Burt; * 

Debbie Nichols; Pradeep Sarswat; * [UNPUBLISHED]

John Ault; Dr. Raymond Jones; *

Dr. Noli Mendoza; Dr. Snow; Jerry *

Commelly; Dr. Satyalu Durga, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: December 1, 2009

Filed: December 29, 2009

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmate Paris Wheeler brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against the Iowa

State Penitentiary (ISP) and several of its staff members, as well as several staff

members at the Anamosa State Penitentiary (ASP) in Iowa. The district court1

 granted

summary judgment for defendants. Wheeler appeals the grant of summary judgment,
-2-

as well as the denial of his motion for an extension of time to respond to the summary

judgment motion. We deny Wheeler’s motion to supplement the record and affirm

the judgment of the district court.

After careful de novo review, we conclude that the grant of summary judgment

was proper. As to the ISP defendants, Wheeler failed to exhaust all administrative

remedies before filing the instant suit. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (prisoner may not

bring § 1983 action with respect to prison conditions before exhausting all available

administrative remedies); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 219-20 (2007) (courts may not

consider any unexhausted claim). As to the ASP defendants, we conclude that

Wheeler’s suit included only official-capacity claims, see Egerdahl v. Hibbing Cmty.

Coll., 72 F.3d 615, 619 (8th Cir. 1995) (when complaint is silent about capacity, court

interprets complaint as including only official-capacity claims), that any claim for

damages was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, see Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S.

159, 166 (1985) (plaintiff seeking damages in official-capacity suit must look to

government entity as real party in interest); Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 471-72

(1985) (suit against government official in his official capacity is in essence suit

against employing government entity); see also Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police,

491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (neither state nor its officials acting in their official capacities

are persons under § 1983); Montano v. Hedgepeth, 120 F.3d 844, 849-50 (8th Cir.

1997) (physicians working in state prisons are state actors), and that any claim for

injunctive relief was moot, because Wheeler was no longer incarcerated at ASP, see

Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985). We also conclude that the

district court did not abuse its discretion by denying an extension to respond to the

summary judgment motion. See Soliman v. Johanns, 412 F.3d 920, 921-22 (8th Cir.

2005) (standard of review). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
<PAGE>

                                    EXHIBIT 21

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

    COMPANY                                                                     JURISDICTION
<S>                                                                             <C>

Poland Communications, Inc.                                                     New York

Poland Cablevision (Netherlands) B.V.                                           Netherlands

Czestochowska TK Sp. z o.o.                                                     Poland (in liquidation)

ETV Sp. z o.o.                                                                  Poland

Gosat-Service Sp. z o.o.                                                        Poland

Kolor-Sat Sp. z o.o.                                                            Poland

Mazurska Telewizja Kablowa Sp. z o.o.                                           Poland

Opolskie TTT S.A.                                                               Poland

Polska Telewizja Kablowa Krakow S.A.                                            Poland

Polska Telewizja Kablowa Lublin S.A.                                            Poland

Polska Telewizja Kablowa Operator Sp. z o.o.                                    Poland

Polska Telewizja Kablowa S.A.                                                   Poland

Polska Telewizja Kablowa Szczecin Sp. z o.o.                                    Poland

Polska Telewizja Kablowa Warszawa S.A.                                          Poland

Poltelkab Sp. z o.o.                                                            Poland

Szczecinska Telewizja Kablowa Sp. z o.o.                                        Poland

Telkat Sp. z o.o.                                                               Poland

TV Kabel Sp. z o.o.                                                             Poland

TV-SAT Ursus Sp. z o.o.                                                         Poland (in liquidation)

Otwocka Telewizja Kablowa Sp. z o.o.                                            Poland (in liquidation)

Synergy Investment Sp z o.o.                                                    Poland

KTK Sp. z o.o.                                                                  Poland
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  Registration  Statements
(Forms  S-8  No.  33-54794,  No.  33-54796,  No.  33-54798,  No.  33-95274,  and
No.33-95276,  No.  333-13009,  No.  33-78842,  No. 33-78838,  No.  333-13011) of
CoreComm  Incorporated  (the  "Company")  of our report dated  February 27, 1998
except for note 1 as to which the date is March 25,  1998,  with  respect to the
consolidated  financial  statements of the Company included in its Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.



                                                  ERNST & YOUNG LLP


San Juan, Puerto Rico
March 26, 1998
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             McLEODUSA INCORPORATED


                      COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
                 (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 

                                                                                                Three Months Ended
                                                                                                    March 31,
                                                                                               -------------------- 
                                                                                                 1998        1997
                                                                                               --------    -------- 
<S>                                                                                            <C>         <C> 
Computation of weighted average number of
 common shares outstanding:
Common shares, Class A, outstanding at the
 beginning of the period.................................................................        61,799      36,173
Common shares, Class B, outstanding at the
 beginning of the period (A).............................................................           ---      15,626
Weighted average number of shares issued
 during the period.......................................................................           428         528
                                                                                               --------    --------
Weighted average number of common shares.................................................        62,227      52,327
                                                                                               ========    ========
Net loss.................................................................................      $(30,267)   $(13,355)
                                                                                               ========    ========
Loss per common share....................................................................      $  (0.49)   $  (0.26)
                                                                                               ========    ========
</TABLE> 

(A) The Class B common stock, $.01 par value per share is convertible on a one-
    for-one basis at any time at the option of the holder into Class A common
    stock. As of March 31, 1998, all shares of Class B common stock had been
    converted into shares of Class A common stock.
News United States Air Force
 Welsh shares holiday messagePublished Dec. 22, 2015
                        
                        By Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs Command Information
                
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS)**– Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III and his wife Betty; Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. David L. Goldfein and his wife Dawn; and the Air Staff wish all Airmen and their families a wonderful holiday season.CSAF 



VCSAF 



holiday
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FOR UNION
NATIONAL BANCORP'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN IT'S ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       6,310,869
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          12,202
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            17,877,697
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 64,326,163
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      12,349,883
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    159,064,278
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,760,093
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             265,843,075
<DEPOSITS>                                 214,275,060
<SHORT-TERM>                                19,337,162
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,660,845
<LONG-TERM>                                 10,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,748
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,553,260
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             265,843,075
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,586,603
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,111,948
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               179,697
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,878,249
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,996,371
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,283,116
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,595,133
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   85,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,965,967
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                924,157
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   640,043
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.18
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,085,556
<LOANS-PAST>                                   499,938
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              2,915,121
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,793,112
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  136,634
<RECOVERIES>                                    18,615
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,760,093
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,760,093
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5734-H5735]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 366, I was unavoidably detained 
[[Page H5735]] and unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________
```
OBN Holdings

December 18, 2003

Ms. Keiko S. Smith
1626 Malcolm Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90024

Re:	OBN Holdings Stock Owned by Rikiya S. Smith
        with you as Custodian

Dear Ms. Smith:

For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which
is hereby acknowledged by the parties, on behalf of Rikiya S. Smith, a
minor, you agree to the following:

   1.  All shares of OBN Holdings, Inc. common stock owned by you,
       which totals 77,071, shall have a lock-up period of one (1)
       year from the effective date of the current SB-2 filing, and
       may not be sold prior to that time;

   2.  Should, prior to the aforementioned lock-up period, you elect
       to gift, or otherwise grant any third party shares of stock
       you currently own, any such stock gifted or granted shall have
       the same lock-up provisions as if you continued to own the
       shares; and

   3.  Once the lock-up period has expired, you shall not exceed the
       currently existing SEC 144 Regulations, which includes not
       selling any more than one percent (1%) of the outstanding
       shares within a ninety (90) day period, and filing Forms 3, 4
       or 5 with the SEC.

If you are in agreement with the aforementioned terms and conditions,
please acknowledge by signing below.

Sincerely,

/s/ Donald Wilson
Donald Wilson
Corporate Secretary


Agreed and accepted

/s/ Keiko S. Smith
_________________________________________
Keiko S. Smith f/b/o Rikiya S. Smith, a minor

8275 South Eastern Ave., Suite 200 . Las Vegas, NV 89123
        (702) 938-0467 . (702) 990-8681 Fax

<PAGE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Lester SCHWARTZ; Jeffrey Schwartz, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 00-1128 (CON).

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 12, 2001.

Lawrence Gerzog, New York, NY, for appellant.

Mary Jo White, United States Attorney, Alexander H. Shapiro, Assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of New York; James J. Benjamin, on the brief, New York, NY, for appellee.

Present MESKILL, LEVAL and CALABRESI, Circuit Judges.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant-appellant Jeffrey Schwartz appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Harold Baer, Jr., *D.J.),*convicting him of obstruction of justice, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503, and conspiracy to obstruct justice, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, and sentencing him to fifteen months of imprisonment, two years of supervised release, a $5000 fine, and $200 in special assessments.

We affirm for substantially the reasons set forth by the district court in its January 5, 1999, Memorandum and Order finding defendant guilty of the crimes charged in the indictment, and in its August 10, 1999, Opinion and Order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
#### J. B. Campbell v. E. B. Wallace.

(No. 2567.)

Appeal from Washington County.

C. R. Breedlove, counsel for appellant.

Searcy & Garrett and Bryan & Campbell, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 438. *Surviving partner may sue as such, without joining representatives of deceased partner.*It is well settled that a surviving partner of a firm may, as such, maintain a suit to recover a debt due the firm, without joining in such suit the heirs or legal representatives of the deceased partner. [Fulton v. Thompson, 18. Tex. 278; Watson v. Miller, 55 Tex. 290; 1 App. C. C. §§ 690, 691, 692.]

§ 434. *Article Revised Statutes, does not disqualify a party from testifying as to transactions, etc., with a deceased partner, when; case stated.*This suit was brought by appellee *as*surviving partner of the firm of J. H. & E. B: Wallace to recover of appellant a debt due said firm. The legal representatives of the deceased partner were not made parties to the suit. Appellant pleaded a payment of a portion of said debt to the deceased partner during his life-time, and on the trial offered to testify to such payment. Upon objection by appellant that said testimony was inhibited byyarticle 2248-of the Revised Statutes, the same was rejected, and judgment was rendered for appellee for the amount sued for, $797.79, and costs. *Held:*It was error to exclude the testimony offered to prove the payment. In Roberts

. *515v. Yarboro, 41 Tex. 449, it is held that said article 2248 did not disqualify a party from testifying to declarations made by a deceased partner in a suit against a firm in which the representative of such deceased partner was not a party. That decision, in effect, is that said article does not apply in the case of a deceased partner where the representative of such a deceased partner is not a party to the suit. It is true that, since the rendition of that decision, said article has been amended by adding thereto the provision that it shall ‘ ‘ extend to and include all actions by or against the heirs or legal representatives of a decedent arising out of ahy transaction with such decedent.” Counsel for appellee contend that the words ‘ ‘ legal representative ” should be construed to include a surviving partner. We have found no definition of said term which would warrant such construction, nor does the commonly understood meaning of the term warrant such interpretation. In law, and as commonly understood and used, the term includes an executor or administrator of the decedent, or sometimes his heirs or next of kin. [Bouvier’s Law Die., titles Personal Representative, Representative.] It might also include the devisees or legatees of the decedent.

January 16, 1889.

Reversed and remanded.