alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, WILLIAM R. KERR, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2004 of NortelNetworks Corporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: January 31, 2005 /s/WILLIAM R. KERRWILLIAM R. KERRChief Financial Officer
William Guthrie received his B.A. degree in mathematics from Case 

Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH in 1987 and an M.S. 

degree in statistics from The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH in 

1990. He joined the Statistical Engineering Division at the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg, MD in 

1989 where he works as a Mathematical Statistician.

He has collaborated with NIST scientists and engineers in a wide 

range of areas, applying statistical methods to solve problems in 

semiconductor and microelectronic metrology, building materials research, and chemical 

science. His statistical interests include uncertainty assessment, Bayesian statistics, design of 

experiments, calibration, modern regression methods, and statistical computation.

He was appointed to the FSSB in 2018.
EXHIBIT 3.1(a)(ii)

 

CERTIFICATE OF INCREASE

OF

SERIES A JUNIOR PARTICIPATING PREFERRED STOCK

OF

CONTINENTAL AIRINES, INC.

(Pursuant to Section 151(g) of the

Delaware General Corporation Law)

 

		Continental Airlines, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), does hereby certify: 

		FIRST:	In a Certificate of Designation filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on November 23, 1998, pursuant to Section 151 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, as amended by the Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Designation filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on May 16, 2001, the Corporation was authorized to issue 100,000 shares of Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock (the "Series A Preferred"), as a series of the Corporation's authorized Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share;

		SECOND:	The executive committee of the board of directors of the Corporation, by resolution adopted June 17, 2008, duly authorized and directed that the number of shares of the Corporation's Series A Preferred be increased from 100,000 shares to 150,000 shares.

		**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officer this 20th day of June, 2008.

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.

 

By:  /s/ Lori A. Gobillot			
					       	Name:	Lori A. Gobillot

Title:	Staff Vice President and Assistant General 	Counsel
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                                   EXHIBIT 32.1

            In  connection   with  the  Quarterly   Report  of  Mountains   West
Exploration,  Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,
2006 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report").

            I, Lee Wiskowski,  President and Principal  Executive Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 USC  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief.

            (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.




                                            /s/ Lee Wiskowski
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Lee Wiskowski, President
                                            (principal executive officer)

Dated: August 21, 2006
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Scott G. Mitchell, Appellant.

Submitted September 8, 2009;

decided September 15, 2009

Reported below, 62 AD3d 1045.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Livingston L. Hatch, Esq., Essex County Public Defender, 7551 Court Street, PO Box 217, Elizabethtown, New York 12932 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03 - 0 2 - 00 223 - CV

In the Interest of K.A.G. , Appellant

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 99 - FL - 420 , HONORABLE DULCE MADRIGAL, JUDGE PRESIDING

On November 9, 2001, the district court signed its final order establishing the parent

- child relationship, appointing conservators, and setting child support. Jacinto Solis, who by his answer admitted paternity and was adjudicated the child = s father, filed a timely motion for new trial. Accordingly, his notice of appeal was due February 7, 2002. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 26.1(a)(1). Any motion for extension, express or implied, 1 was due February 22, 2002. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. On March 29, 2002, the clerk of this Court r eceived a document labeled A Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Record and Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant = s Brief. @ A ttached to the motion was an affidavit of indigence. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 20. As neither this Court nor the trial court had ever received a notice of appeal, the clerk of this Court considered the document as a notice of appeal. However, that n otice was untimely. Even the apparent date of its preparation, 2 March 1, 2002, is too late to confer jurisdiction on this

1 See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 61 5, 617 (Tex. 1997) (receipt of document within fifteen

- day period to file motion for extension implies motion for extension of time to file that document).

2 Soliz is an inmate proceeding pro se . Even if we were to allow for possible problems in mailing the document, the preparation date itself is too late.2

Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 2 (may not alter time for perfecting appeal in civil case). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

__________________________________________ Lee Yeakel, Justice Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: May 16, 2002 Do Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            1927
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    12923
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 14850
<PP&E>                                           14470
<DEPRECIATION>                                   11697
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4818108
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4373241
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         38020
<OTHER-SE>                                      406847
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4818108
<SALES>                                         223030
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                223030
<CGS>                                             2894
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2894
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                124799
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3461
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  93943
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              93943
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     93943
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .002
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .002
        

</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2265 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 

of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, State Mediation Grants for fiscal 

year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US 

Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, State 

Mediation Grants for fiscal year 2024. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FARM 

5 SERVICE AGENCY, STATE MEDIATION 

6 GRANTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for US Department of Agriculture, Farm Service 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2265 IH

1 Agency, State Mediation Grants for fiscal year 2024 may 

2 not exceed $3,904,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
667 A.2d 668

#### IN THE MATTER OF SUNAO T.A. YAMADA, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

October 5, 1995.

CORRECTED ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed its decision with the Court on August 18, 1995, concluding that as reciprocal discipline for his three-year suspension from practice in New York for assisting a client in conduct known to be illegal or fraudulent and for representing clients with differing interests, SUNAO T.A. YAMADA of JERSEY CITY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1982, and who was thereafter temporarily suspended from practice by Order of this Court dated July 13, 1994, and who remains suspended at this time, should be suspended from practice for a period of three years retroactive to July 13, 1994;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that respondent should not be eligible for reinstatement in New Jersey unless and until he is reinstated to practice law in New York;

And respondent having failed to appear on the return date of the Order to Show Cause in this matter;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that SUNAO T.A. YAMADA is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years, and until further Order of the Court, the suspension to be retroactive to July 13, 1994; and it is further

ORDERED that no application for reinstatement be made to this Court until such time respondent is reinstated to the practice of law in New York; and it is further

*586ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he comply with *Rule*1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
1The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Arthur J.

Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3748

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Jose Ramon Bustillos, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: July 2, 2001

 Filed: July 6, 2001

___________

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Following a conditional guilty plea to conspiring to distribute cocaine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846, Jose Ramon Bustillos

challenges the district court’s1 denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during

a traffic stop. Having carefully reviewed the record, including the testimony presented

at the suppression hearing, we agree with the district court that the traffic stop was

lawful, given that the officer involved had reason to believe the car that appellant was
-2-

driving was unregistered. We also agree that appellant was not detained for an

unreasonable length of time after the stop. See United States v. Peltier, 217 F.3d 608,

610 (8th Cir. 2000) (traffic stop was lawful where vehicle had no license plate and

tinted windows prevented deputy from seeing temporary registration application);

United States v. Allegree, 175 F.3d 648, 650 (8th Cir.) (officer reasonably believed,

although mistakenly, that vehicle violated operating statutes and thus was entitled to

stop car; because officer’s suspicions were aroused during traffic stop, he was entitled

to expand scope of questioning and subsequent voluntary consent to search was valid),

cert. denied 528 U.S. 958 (1999); United States v. $404,905.00 in U.S. Currency, 182

F.3d 643, 647 (8th Cir. 1999) (following valid traffic stop, officer may detain motorist

while completing routine but time-consuming tasks, such as computerized checks of

vehicle’s registration, driver’s license, and criminal history), cert. denied, 528 U.S.

1161 (2000).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

T’HEISHA CHANDLER, )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 16-00137-KD-C

)

SPEEDEE CASH OF ALABAMA, INC., )

Defendant. )

STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

This case involves a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 

201 et seq., brought by Plaintiff T’Heisha Chandler against Defendant Speedee Cash of 

Alabama, Inc. The Parties have reached an agreement to resolve all claims in this case and seek 

Court approval of their settlement and an order of dismissal with prejudice.

Following an examination of the pleadings and terms of the settlement, this Court finds 

that a bona fide dispute of both law and fact is involved in this litigation, including, but not 

limited to, issues of liability and the amount of alleged overtime compensation due, if any. 

Having reviewed the terms of the settlement agreed upon by the Parties, this Court finds that the 

settlement terms proposed by the Parties are fair and equitable to all involved and that their 

agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution of this bona fide dispute. Therefore, the Court 

approves the settlement and the Parties are hereby ordered to finalize the settlement.1

Based upon this resolution by the Parties, all claims Plaintiff has or may have arising out 

of or relating to this lawsuit, including, but not limited to, any claims under the FLSA for wages, 

overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses or other relief, award or damages 

 1 See Order dated September 13, 2016 (Doc. 17). 

Case 2:16-cv-00137-KD-C Document 18 Filed 09/14/16 Page 1 of 2
are hereby resolved and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court does not retain 

jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. 

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil docket as a final 

judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of September 2016.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00137-KD-C Document 18 Filed 09/14/16 Page 2 of 2
From: The District Court of the 2nd Judicial District. County of Silver Bow.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT R. MILLIGAN, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-06-61 DECISION

On July 12, 2007, the defendant was sentenced as follows: Count T: Ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison, with five (5) years suspended, for the offense of Negligent Vehicular Assault, a felony; Count II: A commitment to the County Jail for a term of one (1) year, for the offense of Negligent Vehicular Assault, a felony; and Count TTT: A commitment to the County Jail for a term of one (1) year, for the offense of Negligent Vehicular Assault, a felony. The Defendant is not parole eligible until he completes Anger Management, Chemical Dependency Intensive Treatment Unit and Cognitive Principles and Restructuring. The Court also recommends the Defendant complete a psychological evaluation and if recommended by mental health personnel begin treatment prior to his release from the Montana State Prison. Counts I, II and III shall run concurrently with each other and consecutively with the sentence imposed in Cascade County.

On May 8, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

*38The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are sufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly excessive in light of sentences given toward similar crimes around the state.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be modified as follows: Count I: A commitment to the Montana Department of Corrections for a term of ten (10) years, with five (5) years suspended; Count II: A commitment to the County Jail for a term of one (1) year; and Count III: A commitment to the County Jail for a term of one (1) year. Counts I, II and III shall run concurrently with each other and consecutive to the sentence imposed in Cascade County. The parole restriction, recommendations of the District Court, and the terms and conditions shall remain as imposed in the Judgment of July 12, 2007.

Done in open Court this 7th day of May, 2009.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
I, WILLIAM R. KERR, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 ofNortel Networks Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: January 10, 2005
/s/ WILLIAM R. KERR