alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
31.(d)
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  I, Susan
Tomasky, certify that:
  1. I have
reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A
of:
 
 AEP
Generating Company
 AEP Texas
Central Company
 AEP Texas
North Company
 Appalachian
Power Company
 Columbus
Southern Power Company
 Indiana
Michigan Power Company
 Kentucky
Power Company
 Ohio
Power Company
 Public
Service Company of Oklahoma
 Southwestern
Electric Power Company;
 
 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.
    The
      registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e)
      and 15d-15(e))
      for the registrant and we 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 evaluations;
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 (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
      annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting; and
 
 4
    The
      registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
      most recent evaluationof
      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
    function):
 
 a.
    All
      significant deficienciesand
      material weaknessesin
      the design or operation of internalcontrol
      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 controlover
      financial reporting.
 
 
 
 Date: May
6, 2005  By: /s/
Susan Tomasky
 Susan
Tomasky
 Chief
Financial Officer
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 Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 90
          - [WP Docket No. 07-100; FCC 09-29]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Federal Communications Commission is correcting a final rule that appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         of May 21, 2009, 74 FR 23799. The document issued a measurement procedure for the maximum conducted output power of radio equipment used in the 4.9 GHz frequency band.                    

# DATES:

Effective June 22, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Thomas Eng, Policy Division, Public Safety and Homeland Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554, at (202) 418-0019, TTY (202) 418-7233, via e-mail at                         *Thomas.Eng@fcc.gov,*                         or via U.S. Mail at Federal Communications Commission, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Federal Communications Commission published a document in the                     **Federal Register**                     on May 21, 2009, 74 FR 23799, inadvertently omitting the words “using instrumentation.” This correction is necessary for clarification. In rule FR Doc. E9-11908 published May 21, 2009, 74 FR 23799 make the following correction:                

§ 90.1215 

On page 23803, in the third column, in § 90.1215 Power Limits, in paragraph (c), the first sentence, “The maximum conducted output power is measured as a conducted emission over any interval of continuous transmission calibrated in terms of an RMS-equivalent voltage.” is corrected to read “The maximum conducted output power is measured as a conducted emission over any interval of continuous transmission using instrumentation calibrated in terms of an RMS-equivalent voltage.”

Marlene H. Dortch,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-13665 Filed 6-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: November 6, 2014 105532 105533

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DAVID P. TERRY, Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: October 7, 2014 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Stein, McCarthy, Rose and Clark, JJ.

__________ Dean C. Schneller, Plattsburgh, for appellant. Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Nicholas J. Evanovich of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Clark, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.), rendered November 8, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of forgery in the second degree (six counts), criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (six counts), grand larceny in the third degree (three counts) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (three counts). In satisfaction of two indictments charging him with numerous crimes, defendant pleaded guilty to forgery in the second degree (six counts), criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (six counts), grand larceny in the third degree (three counts) and grand larceny in the fourth-2- 105532 105533 degree (three counts) and agreed to waive his right to appeal. He was thereafter sentenced, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate prison term of 12 to 24 years. Defendant now appeals. We affirm. Initially, upon reviewing the record, including the plea colloquy and written waiver of appeal, we find that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. He was not advised that the right to appeal is separate and distinct from the other rights that he was forfeiting by his guilty plea (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Patterson, 119 AD3d 1157, 1158 [2014]; People v Bressard, 112 AD3d 988, 988 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1137 [2014]). Defendant's claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is unpreserved for our review as the record does not reflect that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Vandemark, 117 AD3d 1339, 1340 [2014], lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [Sept. 30, 2014]; People v Trombley, 115 AD3d 1114, 1114 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1068 [2014]). Further, while defendant's contention that his sentence is harsh and excessive is properly before us, we find no extraordinary circumstances or abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Miller, 113 AD3d 935, 936 [2014], lv denied 22 NY3d 1201 [2014]; People v Butler, 111 AD3d 1024, 1025 [2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 961 [2014]). Lahtinen, J.P., Stein, McCarthy and Rose, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
#### Robert Sanford DIETRICH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stan CZERNIAK, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-35948.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2009.*

Filed May 26, 2009.

Anthony Bornstein, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Inge D. Wells, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Oregon state prisoner Robert Sanford Dietrich appeals from the district court’s *622judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

Dietrich contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney’s incorrect advice regarding his potential sentencing exposure. We conclude that the state court reasonably concluded that the record demonstrates that Dietrich’s attorney did adequately inform him before sentencing of his sentencing exposure and advise him that he could withdraw his plea. Therefore, Dietrich has not demonstrated prejudice because he has not shown that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. *See Hill v. Lockhart,*474 U.S. 52, 60, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985). We therefore conclude that the state court’s rejection of Dietrich’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); *see also Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Dietrich also contends that his attorney should have done more to combat pressure placed on him to plead guilty by his fellow church members. We decline to address this contention because he raises it for the first time in his opening brief. *See Allen v. Ornoski,*435 F.3d 946, 960 (9th Cir.2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### WILLYS MOTORS, Inc., Plaintiff, v. NORTHWEST KAISER-WILLYS, Inc., Irving H. English and William J. Nickerson, Defendants.

Civ. No. 5149.

United States District Court D. Minnesota, Fourth Division.

Feb. 10, 1956.

*474John Hannaford, St. Paul, Minn., for plaintiff.

William C. Kelly, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant.

DEVITT, District Judge.

The plaintiff moves the Court to enter its order assessing defendants $150 as reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, for the failure of defendants to promptly answer plaintiff’s interrogatories. The plaintiff has submitted a memorandum in support of his motion.

I don’t think this is a proper case to invoke the penalty provided in Rule 37(a), 28 U.S.C.A. I can only require the payment of expenses where the defendants’ conduct has been “without substantial justification.” I have read the cases and the comments of the text writers on the subject, and it appears that the penalty has been applied only in cases where the party proceeded against has “entirely disregarded” the request, has been unreasonable or recalcitrant in his conduct, or where his refusal has been “captious.” See Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure, Volume 2, Page 557.

The court in Grimmett v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., D.C.N.D. Ohio 1941, 11 F.R.D. 335, 336, said that “The drastic provisions of the Rule should be invoked only when deliberate or flagrant attitude is demonstrated.”

It is true that in this case the information sought by plaintiff by interrogatories was not promptly furnished and was made available only after much consultation and telephoning; but it is not evident to the Court that the failure of the defendants to promptly furnish the answers was due to any unreasonable, recalcitrant, deliberate or captious conduct or attitude. I cannot conclude that the defendants’ conduct was “without substantial justification.”

The motion is denied.
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Federal Bureau of Investigation

In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5, United States Code, Appendix, and Title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 101-6.1015, with the concurrence of the Attorney General, I have determined that the reestablishment of the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Advisory Policy Board (APB) is in the public interest. In connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the FBI by law, I hereby give notice of the reestablishment of the APB Charter.

The APB provides me with general policy recommendations with respect to the philosophy, concept, and operational principles of the various criminal justice information systems managed by the FBI's CJIS Division.

                    The APB includes representatives from local and state criminal justice agencies; tribal law enforcement representatives; members of the judicial, prosecutorial, and correctional sectors of the criminal justice community, as well as one individual representing a national security agency; a representative of Federal agencies participating in the CJIS Division Systems; and representatives of criminal justice professional associations (                    *i.e.,*                     the American Probation and Parole Association; American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, Inc.; International Association of Chiefs of Police; National District Attorneys' Association; National Sheriffs' Association; Major Cities Chiefs' Association; Major County Sheriffs' Association; and a representative from a national professional association representing the courts or court administrators nominated by the Conference of Chief Justices). The Attorney General has granted me the authority to appoint all members to the APB.                

The APB functions solely as an advisory body in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Charter has been filed in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Dated: June 4, 2009.

Robert S. Mueller, III,

Director.

[FR Doc. E9-13848 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-02-M
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3164 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3164

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend financing of the 
                               Superfund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 25, 2010

Mr. Lautenberg (for himself, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Sanders, 
 Mr. Merkley, and Mr. Cardin) introduced the following bill; which was 
          read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend financing of the 
                               Superfund.

    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 ``Polluter Pays Restoration Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF SUPERFUND TAXES.

    (a) Excise Taxes.--Section 4611(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended to read as follows:
    ``(e) Application of Hazardous Substance Superfund Financing 
Rate.--The Hazardous Substance Superfund financing rate under this 
section shall apply after December 31, 1986, and before January 1, 
1996, and after the date of the enactment of this subsection and before 
January 1, 2017.''.
    (b) Corporate Environmental Income Tax.--Section 59A(e) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
    ``(e) Application of Tax.--The tax imposed by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986, and before 
January 1, 1996, and to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
enactment of this subsection and before January 1, 2017.''.
    (c) Technical Amendments.--
            (1) Section 4611(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
        amended--
                    (A) by striking ``or exported from'' in paragraph 
                (1)(A),
                    (B) by striking ``or exportation'' in paragraph 
                (1)(B), and
                    (C) by striking ``and Exportation'' in the heading.
            (2) Section 4611(d)(3) of such Code is amended--
                    (A) by striking ``or exporting the crude oil, as 
                the case may be'' in the text and inserting ``the crude 
                oil'', and
                    (B) by striking ``or exports'' in the heading.
    (d) Effective Dates.--
            (1) Excise taxes.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
        and (c) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
        Act.
            (2) Income tax.--The amendment made by subsection (b) shall 
        apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

****In connection with the Annual Report of Angelica Corporation (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 27, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Stephen M. O’Hara, Chairman, President and 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 Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                                                                                                 | /s/ Stephen M. O’Hara                Stephen M. O’HaraChairman, President andChief Executive Officerof Angelica CorporationApril 12, 2007 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit
32.2





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 International Packaging and Logistic
Group, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Steve Westlund, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of the undersigned’s 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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/ Steve
Westlund


Steve
Westlund


Chief
Financial Officer





August
12, 2008