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



Certifications



I, Edward Escudero, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Petro Stopping Centers, L.P.;



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)) for the registrant and have:



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



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



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: November 4, 2004               
|                                     
|/s/ Edward Escudero                  
|(Edward Escudero)                    
|Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1620 

To provide permanent funding for the payment in lieu of taxes program, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 21, 2007 

Mrs. CUBIN (for herself, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. REHBERG, Mr. BISHOP

of Utah, Mr. HERGER, Mr. CALVERT, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. CANNON, 

Mr. HELLER of Nevada, Mr. SIMPSON, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, and 

Mr. RENZI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide permanent funding for the payment in lieu of 

taxes 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 ‘‘Federal Land Com5 pensation Act’’. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1620 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMANENT FUNDING FOR PILT AND REFUGE REV2 ENUE SHARING. 

3 (a) PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES.—Section 6906 of 

4 title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

5 end the following: 

6 ‘‘Amounts authorized under this chapter shall be made 

7 available to the Secretary of the Interior, out of any other 

8 funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated and 

9 without further appropriation, for obligation or expendi10 ture in accordance with this chapter as follows: 

11 ‘‘(1) For fiscal year 2008, 80 percent of the 

12 amount authorized under this chapter in the prior 

13 fiscal year. 

14 ‘‘(2) For fiscal year 2009, 90 percent of the 

15 amount authorized under this chapter in the prior 

16 fiscal year. 

17 ‘‘(3) For fiscal year 2010, and each fiscal year 

18 thereafter, 100 percent of the amount authorized 

19 under this chapter in the prior fiscal year.’’. 

20 (b) REFUGE REVENUE SHARING.—Section 401(d) of 

21 the Act of June 15, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 715s(d)), relating 

22 to refuge revenue sharing, is amended by adding at the 

23 end the following: 

24 ‘‘Such amount shall be made available to the Secretary, 

25 out of any other funds in the Treasury not otherwise ap26 propriated and without further appropriation, for obligaVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:07 Mar 24, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1620.IH H1620

bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1620 IH

1 tion or expenditure in accordance with this section as fol2 lows: 

3 ‘‘(1) For fiscal year 2008, 80 percent of the 

4 amount authorized under this chapter in the prior 

5 fiscal year. 

6 ‘‘(2) For fiscal year 2009, 90 percent of the 

7 amount authorized under this chapter in the prior 

8 fiscal year. 

9 ‘‘(3) For fiscal year 2010, and each fiscal year 

10 thereafter, 100 percent of the amount authorized 

11 under this chapter in the prior fiscal year.’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
#### Reginald WRIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D12-1697.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 19, 2012.

Reginald Wright, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ and FERNANDEZ, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Reginald Wright appeals the summary denial of his 3.850 motion for post conviction relief in which he raised various *1216grounds for relief, one of which included a claim that the trial court’s sentence of twenty-eight years constituted a breach of his plea agreement and did not conform with the court’s oral pronouncement. We reverse and remand because the trial court did not attach the proper record to refute Wright’s claims.

Wright’s claims are cognizable in a motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure. *See Byers v. State,*916 So.2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). A trial court cannot summarily deny a rule 3.800(a) motion without attaching the portion of the record that refutes the claims raised in the motion. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). Furthermore, any discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence requires the written sentence to be corrected to conform to the court’s oral pronouncement. *See Williams v. State,*957 So.2d 600 (Fla.2007).

The trial court denied Wright’s motion for his failure to substantiate his claims. The court, however, did not attach record support to its order showing that Wright is not entitled to the relief he requested.

Therefore, we reverse the summary denial of Wright’s motion and remand to the trial court to either attach the proper record to refute Wright’s claims or to grant him the relief he requests. On remand, the trial court should also consider whether Wright has, as the court noted in its order, completed his sentence.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.
856 A.2d 39

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Chauncey HARRIS, Respondent.

No. 930 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 15, 2004.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 2004, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated April 16, 2004, it is hereby

*399ORDERED that CHAUNCEY HARRIS be and he is SUSPENDED from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of one year and one day, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217 Pa.R.D.E.

It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
#### AA GUTTER CLEANING, INC. and First Commercial Claims Services, Appellants, v. Nicholas CESARIO, Appellee.

No. 1D09-2382.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 22, 2010.

David R. Drill and Kimberly J. Fer-nandes of Kelley, Kronenberg, Gilmartin, *282Fichtel & Wander, Miami Lakes, for Appellants.

David A. McCranie of David A. McCra-nie, P.A., Orange Park, and Michael P. Sullivan of Michael P. Sullivan, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation case, the employer and carrier argue that the judge of compensation claims erroneously interpreted section 440.13(9)(c), Florida Statutes (2004), to require that the disagreement between health care providers necessary for the appointment of an expert medical advisor be between health care providers within the same specialty. We agree and, accordingly, reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Here, an orthopedic specialist and a pain management specialist expressed differing opinions as to whether the workplace injury remained the major contributing cause of claimant’s low back condition and need for treatment. The fact that section 440.13(9)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), requires that the Agency for Health Care Administration “certify expert medical ad-visors in each specialty” does not compel the judge’s narrow interpretation of paragraph (c). Paragraph (c) addresses the situation where there is a “disagreement in the opinions of the health care providers.” A “health care provider” is a physician “certified by the agency.” § 440.13(l)(h), Fla. Stat. (2004). A claimant’s treatment for a particular condition may encompass multiple specialists, and causation issues may arise which various health care providers can appropriately address. Because the judge erred as matter of law in his interpretation of section 440.13(9), we reverse the denial of the request for appointment of an expert medical advisor, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. *See Horticulture Plus, Inc. v. Ash,*791 So.2d 535, 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (reversing a determination that, as matter of law, section 440.13(9)(c) did not apply, and remanding because the judge failed to make a determination as to whether a factual disagreement existed between health care providers).

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, DAVIS, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1583 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1583

 To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to extend 
 the Milk Income Loss Contract Program through fiscal year 2012 at the 
45 percent payment rate, to establish a minimum price for Class I milk 
      under Federal milk marketing orders, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 2007

 Mrs. Gillibrand introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                      the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to extend 
 the Milk Income Loss Contract Program through fiscal year 2012 at the 
45 percent payment rate, to establish a minimum price for Class I milk 
      under Federal milk marketing orders, and for other purposes.

    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 ``American Dairy Farmer Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. CONTINUATION OF MILK INCOME LOSS CONTRACT PROGRAM.

    (a) Continuation of Program; Payment Percentage Rate.--Subsection 
(c)(3)(C) of section 1502 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7982) is amended by striking ``0 percent'' and 
inserting ``and ending on September 30, 2012, 45 percent''.
    (b) Maximum Payment Quantity.--Subsection (d)(2) of such section is 
amended by striking ``2,400,000 pounds'' and inserting ``4,800,000 
pounds''.
    (c) Contract Signup and Duration.--Subsections (f) and (g)(1) of 
such section are amended by striking ``September 30, 2007'' and 
inserting ``September 30, 2012''.

SEC. 3. MINIMUM PRICE FOR CLASS I MILK UNDER FEDERAL MILK MARKETING 
              ORDERS.

    (a) Minimum Price.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
effective October 1, 2007, the minimum price for Class I milk under 
each Federal milk marketing order issued under section 8c(5) of the 
Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(5)), reenacted with 
amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, shall 
be $15.58 per hundredweight during fiscal year 2008.
    (b) Inflation Adjustment.--The minimum price for Class I milk to be 
in effect for a fiscal year under subsection (a) (other than fiscal 
year 2008) shall be adjusted by the percent that equals the total 
percentage change that occurred in the Consumer Price Index for all 
urban consumers (all items; U.S. city average) for the 12 month period 
ending June 30 preceding the fiscal year for which the adjustment is 
made. The adjustment made each fiscal year by this subsection shall be 
added on a compounded basis to the sum of all adjustments made each 
fiscal year after fiscal year 2008 under this subsection.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-148132), pertaining to the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan, the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 2000 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan of Rigel
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-51184, 333-106532, 333-125895 and 333-134622),
pertaining to the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan, the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 2000 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-72492) pertaining to the 2001 Non-Officer Equity Incentive Plan of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-107062 and 333-139516) pertaining to the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Rigel
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-111782) pertaining to the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan of Rigel
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-148838, 333-74906, 333-87276, 333-105431,
333-106942, 333-111777, 333-112746, 333-119785 and 333-129650) and the related Prospectuses, respectively, of our reports dated
February 24, 2009, with respect to the financial statements of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Rigel
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Palo
Alto, California
February 24, 2009

---
856 A.2d 40

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Antoinette M.J. BENTIVEGNA, Respondent,

No. 929 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 15, 2004.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 2004, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board and Dissenting Report and Recommendation dated April 16, 2004, it is hereby

ORDERED that Antoinette M.J. Bentivegna be and she is suspended from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of two years, and she shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            8178
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     9865
<ALLOWANCES>                                        70
<INVENTORY>                                        439
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 19314
<PP&E>                                           12231
<DEPRECIATION>                                    6230
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   33403
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            10544
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            32
<OTHER-SE>                                       18705
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     33403
<SALES>                                           6184
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  6184
<CGS>                                             2168
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2168
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4557
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (51)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (472)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (170)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (302)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (302)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
#### G., C. & S. F. R’y Co. v. J. W. Fields.

(No. 3275.)

April 29, 1885.

Appeal from Ellis County.

Opinion by

Delaney, J.

§ 794. *Negligence; leewing combustibles on railroad right of tuay; case stated.*Appellee recovered judgment against appellant for $250 damages for destroying, by fire communicated from appellant’s engine, his pasture grass, oats, straw, crib and stable. The fire communicated from the appellant’s engine to dry grass, weeds, etc., left upon the railroad right of way, and spread from thence to appellee’s property, which it destroyed. *Held:*It was negligence on the part of appellant to permit dry grass and weeds in considerable quantities to accumulate upon its right of way, and the fire in this instance was the result of such negligence.

§ 795. *Contributory negligence; owner of land is not guilty of, when.*The owner of land adjacent to a railroad track, having stacks of straw and oats upon his premises, is not guilty of contributory negligence because he permits grass to grow up around said stacks. He is not required to foresee and anticipate the negligence of the company in permitting fire to be communicated to his land from its engines.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 10-QSB for
the quarterly per. 9/30/98 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                        283,758
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   7,818
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                    70,243
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              364,699
<PP&E>                                         22,862
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,268
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                384,681
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,498
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        2,400
<OTHER-SE>                                    383,183
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  384,681
<SALES>                                         6,357
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               20,271
<CGS>                                           3,285
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   3,285
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               59,378
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (54,890)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (54,890)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (54,890)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        


</TABLE>