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

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Dennis J. Stevermer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Milastar Corporation and Subsidiary;

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 thestatements 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 thefinancial 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 ExchangeAct 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 thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring 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 ofthe 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 fiscalquarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely 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 overfinancial reporting.Date: July 28, 2004/s/ DENNIS J. STEVERMERDennis J. StevermerChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND UNAUDITED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<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>                                           2,459
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,476
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,856
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,207
<PP&E>                                         150,872
<DEPRECIATION>                                  82,220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,736
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,694
<BONDS>                                         42,166
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,614
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,669
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,735
<SALES>                                         26,479
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,908
<CGS>                                           21,535
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,028
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                54,216
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,142
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (61,034)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (61,034)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (61,034)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)
        

</TABLE>
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________ No. 12

- 2664

_____________ ALLEN L. FEINGOLD; PHILLIP GODDARD

v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Allen L. Feingold, Appellant

_____________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. Civil No. 2

- 11

- cv - 06309 District Judge: Honorable Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr.

____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LA R 34.1(a)

March 2 2 , 2013

____________ Before: FUENTES , CHAGARES and BARRY, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: April 23, 2013 )

____________ OPINION

____________2

BARRY, Circuit Judge Allen L. Feingold 1 appeals pro se the dismissal of his claims a gainst State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. We will affirm.
I. On August 6, 1998, Phillip Goddard was injured in a car accident caused by an uninsured or underinsured driver. Sometime thereafter, Goddard retained Feingold, then
a licensed att orney, to assist him in pursuing a claim under the uninsured motor vehicle provision of his State Farm policy. Feingold moved to compel arbitration after State Farm refused to pay benefits or appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate Goddard’s claim. Eventually , a neutral arbitrator from Delaware was selected. State Farm then demanded that Goddard undergo a physical examination, but never arranged for the examination. In December 2010, Goddard, represented by new counsel, attempted to schedule an
arbitration h earing. State Farm refused to proceed with arbitration, asserting that Goddard’s claim was now time

- barred. On October 7, 2011, Feingold and Goddard brought claims against State Farm for
breach of contract and bad faith in violation of 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8371. On November 29, 2011, State Farm moved for dismissal for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) and for failure to state a sufficient claim under Rule 12(b)(6). On April 3, 2012, the District Court granted State Farm’s m otion with respect to Feingol d and ordered Feingold to

1 This is not the first time Feingold , a disbarred attorney, has appeared before us on a frivolous appeal from the dismissal of a meritless claim.3

cease participation in the case. After the Court denied reconsideration, Feingold moved for Rule 54(b) certification. The Court certified its judgment as final under Rule 54(b) on May 9, 2012. This appeal followed.
II.
The D istrict Court concluded that, as a threshold jurisdictional matter, Feingold
had not allege d an Article III injury, and, therefore, lacked standing to pursue his claims against State Farm . We agree, and a fter review of the briefs and appendices submitted by the parties, we find no basis for disturbing the exceedingly thorough and well

- reasoned April 3, 2012 opinion of the District Court

. We thus affirm the order of the District Court substantially for the reasons set forth in its opinion.
EXHIBIT 99(a)

                            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 Annual  Report of DRYCLEAN USA, Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Michael S. Steiner,
Principal  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, to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  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 results of operations
          of the Company.

September 30, 2002


                                              /s/ Michael S. Steiner
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Michael S. Steiner
                                              Principal Executive Officer
10857.

#### Blair *v.*Redwine.

Decided December 16, 1919.

Complaint; from Douglas superior court—Judge Irwin. July 2, 1919.

*W. A. James, J. S. James,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. R. Hutcheson,*contra.

Smith, J.

There was evidence to support the verdict in this case, the charge of the court was more favorable to the contentions of the plaintiff in error than to those of the defendant in error, and a careful consideration of the special grounds of the motion for a new trial fails to disclose any reversible error. The court therefore did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jerilcins, P. J., and Stephens, J,, concur.*
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4257

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify payment for 

clinical laboratory tests furnished by critical access hospitals under the 

Medicare Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2004

Mr. OTTER (for himself, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. PETERSON of 

Minnesota, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. POMEROY, Mr. PAUL, Mr. 

ROSS, Mr. MCHUGH, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota, 

Mr. BEREUTER, and Mr. NETHERCUTT) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 

addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify 

payment for clinical laboratory tests furnished by critical 

access hospitals under the Medicare Program.

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 ‘‘Critical Access to Clin5 ical Lab Services Act of 2004’’. 
2

•HR 4257 IH 

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF PAYMENT FOR CLINICAL LAB2 ORATORY TESTS FURNISHED BY CRITICAL 

3 ACCESS HOSPITALS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1834(g)(4) of the Social 

5 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(g)(4)) is amended—

6 (1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘NO BENE7 FICIARY COST-SHARING FOR’’ and inserting ‘‘TREAT8 MENT OF’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘For 

10 purposes of the preceding sentence and section 

11 1861(mm)(3), clinical diagnostic laboratory services 

12 furnished by a critical access hospital shall be treat13 ed as being furnished as part of outpatient critical 

14 access services without regard to whether—

15 ‘‘(A) the individual with respect to whom 

16 such services are furnished is physically present 

17 in the critical access hospital at the time the 

18 specimen is collected; 

19 ‘‘(B) such individual is registered as an 

20 outpatient on the records of, and receives such 

21 services directly from, the critical access hos22 pital; or 

23 ‘‘(C) payment is (or, but for this sub24 section, would be) available for such services 

25 under the fee schedule established under section 

26 1833(h).’’. 
3

•HR 4257 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 subsection (a) shall apply to cost reporting periods begin3 ning on or after October 1, 2003.

Æ
Douglas



# Ciait Cherry

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 

### e 

# 10 

# -C J.

CC: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Bart William Dietzmann Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
BART WILLIAM DIETZMANN, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. No. 69592



# F LED FEB 0 1 2016

. LI MAN HERM • 

# 1:6024, 4(2

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a "Motion to Dismiss Information/Complaint." Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, Judge.

Because no statute or court rule permits an appeal from the aforementioned decision, we lack jurisdiction. Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990). Accordingly, we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 11.1111:: CHHHIF
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000837893
<NAME> 88AP
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         307,617
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,306
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               373,923
<PP&E>                                       4,854,930
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,664,930
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,563,923
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,053
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,546,870
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,563,923
<SALES>                                        149,416
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               162,877
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   91,741
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 71,136
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             71,136
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    71,136
<EPS-BASIC>                                       6.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
10660.

#### Oglesbee *v.*The State.

Decided October 14, 1919.

Conviction of manslaughter; from Tattnall superior court— Judge Sheppard. April 29, 1919.

*H. II. Elders, Oliver & Oliver,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. Saxton Daniel, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, G. J.

1. The alleged newly discovered evidence upon which the special ground of the motion for a new trial was based is both cumulative and impeaching in its character, and is not such evidence as would probably produce a different result if a new trial were granted.

2. There was ample evidence to authorize the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF WORLDCOM, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         260,517
<SECURITIES>                                   213,785
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,239,121
<ALLOWANCES>                                   109,821
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,003,364
<PP&E>                                       5,148,404
<DEPRECIATION>                               (503,915)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,518,757
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,826,165
<BONDS>                                      5,183,941
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        128
<COMMON>                                         9,246
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,319,017
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,516,757
<SALES>                                      1,696,794
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,696,794
<CGS>                                          921,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,541,315
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (13,481)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                24,965
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              90,160
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 78,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                    53,802
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,998
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,998
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
NIST PSCR RESEARCH INVESTMENTS BOLSTER 

ARKANSAS’ ECONOMY 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Public Safety 

Communications Research (PSCR) Division is the primary federal laboratory 

focused on conducting research, development, testing, and evaluation for 

public safety communications technologies. Their mission is to accelerate 

communications innovation in support of public safety communities and the 

citizens they serve. 

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 allocated $300 Million 

from the Public Safety Trust fund to NIST PSCR to perform critical public safety 

communications R&D during a 10-year period. PSCR implemented numerous 

research mechanisms to support the development and deployment of the 

Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network: grants, Small Business Innovation 

Research (SBIR) contracts, prize challenge competitions, and internal research. 

These research mechanisms were housed within six research portfolios and crosscutting initiatives to maximize their impact: 

•	 User Interface/User Experience •	 Public Safety Analytics 

•	 Location-Based Services •	 Security 

•	 Mission Critical Voice •	 Resilient Systems 

While the ultimate impact of these research mechanisms is the increased safety 

of first responders and their communities through improved communications

technologies, PSCR was interested in better understanding how their R&D 

investments to date result in economic impacts that ripple outward to state 

economies. An independent analysis was conducted to demonstrate how PSCR’s 

deployment of the $300 Million from the Public Safety Trust Fund translated into 

broader impacts to the United States, including jobs, earnings, value added, and 

total economic output. PSCR’s R&D investments resulted in economic output 

in 33 of the 50 states. Results of the analysis are presented here. 

For more information, see NIST PSCR’s Economic Impact Study. 

1 Prize Challenge 

Participant 

Awards Totaling 

$0 Million 

ARKANSAS BY THE NUMBERS 

NIST INVESTMENT 

$0 Million 

OUTPUT 

$0.15 Million 

VALUE-ADDED 

$0.10 Million 

EARNINGS 

$0.07 Million 

JOBS 

1 

Output: the total value of economic 

activity circulating through the U.S. 

economy generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Value-Added: how much the 

combined U.S. state economies 

grew over a period of time due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

Earnings: the change in household 

earnings in the U.S. economy 

generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Jobs: the change in the number of 

full- and part-time jobs generated 

by each one million dollar change 

in U.S. economic activity due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

*All dollar amounts presented 

in 2022 and reflect data as of 

October 2022.

For additional information of PSCR’s research programs, visit https://www.nist.gov/ctl/pscr.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3949

To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to delegate to the Under Secretary of 

Commerce for International Trade the functions relating to trade adjustment assistance for firms, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2004

Mr. GRAVES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to delegate to the Under 

Secretary of Commerce for International Trade the functions relating to trade adjustment assistance for firms, 

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. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR AD4 JUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS. 

5 Section 256(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 

6 2346(b)) is amended by striking ‘‘2007’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘2012’’. 
2

•HR 3949 IH 

1 SEC. 2. DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS TO CARRY OUT THE 

2 ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS PRO3 GRAM. 

4 (a) DELEGATION.—Section 256 of the Trade Act of 

5 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2346) is amended—

6 (1) by redesignating subsections (a) through (c) 

7 as subsections (b) through (d), respectively; 

8 (2) by inserting before subsection (b) (as redes9 ignated) the following: 

10 ‘‘(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Sec11 retary shall delegate all functions of the Secretary under 

12 this chapter to the Under Secretary of Commerce for 

13 International Trade.’’; and 

14 (3) in the heading, by striking ‘‘TO SMALL

15 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION’’. 

16 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The item relating 

17 to section 256 in the table of contents of the Trade Act 

18 of 1974 is amended to read as follows:

‘‘Sec. 256. Delegation of functions; authorization of appropriations.’’.

19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

20 this section shall take effect 60 days after the date of the 

21 enactment of this Act.

Æ