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



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERS
CERTIFICATION UNDER
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Trico Marine Services, Inc.;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 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 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:
May 2, 2008
    
    By: /s/ Geoff JonesGeoff JonesChief Financial Officer
 28
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 842 

To direct the Librarian of Congress to ensure that each version of a bill 

or resolution which is made available for viewing on the Congress.gov 

website is presented in a manner which permits the viewer to follow 

and track online, within the same document, any changes made from 

previous versions of the bill or resolution. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2017 

Ms. STEFANIK (for herself, Mr. MESSER, Mr. WELCH, Mr. TONKO, and Mr. 

YOUNG of Iowa) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To direct the Librarian of Congress to ensure that each 

version of a bill or resolution which is made available 

for viewing on the Congress.gov website is presented 

in a manner which permits the viewer to follow and 

track online, within the same document, any changes 

made from previous versions of the bill or resolution. 

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 ‘‘Establishing Digital 

5 Interactive Transparency Act’’ or the ‘‘EDIT Act’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 842 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMITTING VIEWERS TO TRACK CHANGES MADE 

2 TO BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS MADE AVAIL3 ABLE ON CONGRESS.GOV WEBSITE. 

4 (a) REQUIREMENTS FOR WEBSITE.—In the operation 

5 of the Congress.gov website, the Librarian of Congress 

6 shall ensure that each version of a bill or resolution which 

7 is made available for viewing on the website is presented 

8 in a manner which permits the viewer to follow and track 

9 online, within the same document, any changes made from 

10 previous versions of the bill or resolution. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect 

12 upon the expiration of the 1-year period which begins on 

13 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
585 A.2d 394

#### BIEVENIDO HERNANDEZ v. ISABEL L. MARTINEZ.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. 22
- 0662 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. LLOYD MORTIER BARRUS,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 6, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 28 2023

09/28/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0662
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,314
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,557
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (80)
<INVENTORY>                                     36,399
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,324
<PP&E>                                          21,754
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,552
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  93,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,103
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           134
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,543
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    93,271
<SALES>                                        162,370
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               168,111
<CGS>                                           95,569
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   95,569
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (328)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,372
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,047
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,325
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,325
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .90
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. Ebony D. WILLIAMS, Appellant.

No. 00-3290.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 4, 2001.

Decided Jan. 19, 2001.

Before LOKEN, FAGG, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Within days after being placed on the supervised release portion of a sentence she received for passing counterfeit currency, Ebony D. Williams violated a release condition based on her failure successfully to participate in a community corrections center program. Following a revocation hearing at which she stipulated to the violation, the district court revoked supervised release and imposed 16 months *612imprisonment and 20 months additional supervised release. Williams challenges her sentence on appeal, and we affirm.

When a district court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant has violated a supervised release condition, the district court may revoke supervised release and impose imprisonment without credit for time previously served on postrelease supervision. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). We review for abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Grimes,*54 F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir.1995).

Having reviewed the record and Williams’s brief, we conclude her revocation sentence neither exceeds the limits of section 3583(e), nor constitutes an abuse of discretion by the district court. *See*18 U.S.C. §§ 472, 3559(a), 3583(e)(3), 3583(h).

We thus affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF VIEWCAST.COM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 (UNAUDITED)AND QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       6,107,841
<SECURITIES>                                 1,534,850
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,757,850
<ALLOWANCES>                                   804,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,724,222
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,406,214
<PP&E>                                       2,568,179
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,299,555
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,249,947
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,550,142
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         95
<COMMON>                                         1,433
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,698,277
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,249,947
<SALES>                                      5,170,282
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,280,282
<CGS>                                        2,884,724
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,884,724
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,855,703
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               106,189
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             850,765
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,462,567)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,462,567)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,462,567)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.55)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information from consolidated financial
statements for the period ending June 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           31675
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    27568
<ALLOWANCES>                                       691
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 63128
<PP&E>                                          617882
<DEPRECIATION>                                   61788
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  771807
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            33343
<BONDS>                                         393112
<COMMON>                                           285
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      306770
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    771807
<SALES>                                          54982
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 54982
<CGS>                                            63438
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    63438
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   969
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               15513
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (24643)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (8294)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (16349)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (1830)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (18179)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.84)



</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ISRAEL SALINAS, individually, and as parent and natural guardian of JS, LS, and IAS, Appellant,

v.

RICHARD WEDEN, MARY WEDEN and FORT PIERCE UTILITIES AUTHORITY, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 19

- 3634

[ November 25, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Barbara W. Bronis , Judge; L.T. Case No. 2018CA000876

.

Marc R. Ginsberg of Mandina & Ginsberg, LLP, Miami Lakes, for appellant.

John Bond A tkinson and Tiffany Bustamante of Atkinson, P.A., Miami, for appellees Richard Weden and Mary Weden.

P ER C URIAM

.

We affirm the summary judgment in favor of homeowners on a complaint by an independent contractor for injuries he suffered when he

was elect rocuted while trimming trees on their property.

A property owner is generally not liable for injuries sustained by an independent contractor or its employees while performing their work. See Phillips v. Republic Fin. Corp. , 157 So. 3d 320, 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015);

Houk v. Monsanto Co. , 609 So. 2d 757, 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). An exception to that general rule is that :

‘ A person who is having work done on his premises by an independent contractor, and has actual or constru ctive knowledge of latent or potential dangers on the premises, owes a duty to give warning of, or use ordinary care to furnish protection against, such dangers to employees of the2 contractor and subcontractor who are without actual or

constructive notice of the dangers.’

Fl a. Power & Light Co. v. Robinson , 68 So. 2d 406, 411 (Fla. 1953) (cit ations omitted) . However, “[ a ] n ‘ owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his

own sense, and is not required to give the invitee notice or warning of an obvious danger. ’ ” Rice v. Fla

. Power & Light Co. , 363 So. 2d 834, 839 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cit ing Hall v. Holland , 47 So. 2d 889, 89 1

- 92 (Fla. 1950).

The independent contractor admitted tha t he saw the electric lines above the palm trees. While the contractor contends that he did not know that the lines were high voltage lines, it does not seem to us that this constitutes a latent danger. All electric lines are dangerous, some more

than ot hers. “[T]he existence of unobstructed power lines, clearly visible above an open field is not a latent hazard.” Rice

, 363 So. 2d at 839; see also Somers v. Meyers , 171 So. 2d 598, 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965) (“ [I] t is presumed that the inherent dangers of electrically energized wires is [ sic ] known to all except those of tenderest age.”)

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER
, G ERBER and A RTAU

, JJ. , concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed m otion for rehearing.
584 A.2d 227

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WALTER BEIRMEISTER.

May 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 403

#### JAMES FAENZA v. PATRICK ARVONIO.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
584 A.2d 250

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT THOMAS.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
NUMBER 13-12-00621-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

____________________________________________________________

ROSALVA RICO AS NEXT FRIEND OF 

J. E. SALINAS RICO AND A. C. SALINAS, Appellant,

v.

OSCAR SALINAS D/BA DEL INN SUITES 

AND FIRST NATIONAL BANK, Appellees. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 389th District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Rosalva Rico as next friend of J.E. Salinas Rico and A.C. Salinas, 

appealed a judgment entered by the 389th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. On 

October 18, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the notice of appeal failed 
2

to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5(e)(3) and 25.1(d)(2). See TEX. R.

APP. P. 9.5(e)(3) and 25.1(d)(2). The Clerk directed appellant to file an amended notice 

of appeal with the district clerk's office within 30 days from the date of that notice. On

February 7, 2013, the Clerk notified appellant that the defects had not been corrected and 

warned appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defects were not cured within 

ten days. Appellant has not responded to the notices from the Clerk or corrected the 

defects.

An appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or failure to 

comply with a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified 

time. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b),(c). The Court, having considered the documents on 

file, and appellant’s failure to correct the defect, is of the opinion that the appeal should be 

dismissed. See id. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF PROSECUTION and failure to comply with a notice from the Court. See id.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

7th day of March, 2013.
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 Merix Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 28, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Mark R. Hollinger, Chief Executive 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:



|1. | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated October 6, 2004 |  | /s/ Mark R. Hollinger  
|                      |  | Mark R. Hollinger      
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Lazelle FLOYD, a/k/a Larry L. Floyd, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4482.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 29, 2000.

Decided Jan. 16, 2001.

*237Nils E. Gerber, Winston-Salem, NC, for appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, NC, for appellee.

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Larry Lazelle Floyd appeals Ms conviction following a jury trial for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). In the sole issue raised by Floyd in this appeal, he contends that the district court erred in denymg his Fed.R.Crim.P. 29 motion for acquittal. Floyd contends that his own uncorroborated statements and notarized affidavit in which he admitted possession of the crack cocaine at issue were insufficient to support his conviction. This court reviews the demal of a motion for acquittal under a sufficiency of evidence standard. *See*Fed.R.Crim.P. 29; *See Glasser v. United States,*315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); *United States v. Romer,*148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir.1998), *cert. denied,*525 U.S. 1141, 119 S.Ct. 1032,143 L.Ed.2d 41 (1999). In light of that standard, we have no difficulty in deciding that the district court did not err in denying Floyd’s motion. Floyd’s argument amounts to an invitation to this court to reweigh the evidence at trial; an invitation we uniformly decline to accept. *See Glasser,*315 U.S. at 80; *United States v. Saunders,*886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir.1989).

Accordingly, Floyd’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.* 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.*

*

The court has considered and rejected the *v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, possibility of reversible error under *Apprendi*147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 25, 2010.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (Nadine Wallman, Vice President) 1455 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44101-2566:

1. Clay P. Graham, individually, and with Bryan H. Graham, both of Zanesville, Ohio, and the Estate of James F. Graham, Zanesville, Ohio, acting in concert; to acquire voting shares of North Valley Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares and control of the North Valley Bank, both of Zanesville, Ohio.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 5, 2010.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-25385 Filed 10-7-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY

AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES,

Appellant,

v.

NORMA PARRA,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 14

- 00148

- CV

Appeal from the

120th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#2009

- 1677)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee

recover from Appellant all costs, both in this Court and the court below. This decision shall be

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.