alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT31.2**

**Certification of CFOPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I,Nicol G. Graham, Chief Financial Officer of Houston Wire & Cable Company,certify that:

1.                                       Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2006 of Houston Wire & Cable Company;

2.                                       Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                                       Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; and

4.                                       Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 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 registrantand have:

(a)                                  Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)                                 Designedsuch internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;

(c)                                  Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(d)                                 Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: November 6, 2006 |   | /s/ Nicol G. Graham     |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                   |   | Nicol G. Graham         |
|                   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 28, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

In the United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 05-60812

Summary Calendar

PABLO ROBERTO ORTEGA,

Petitioner,

v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

––––––––––––––––

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A29 867 825

––––––––––––––––

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pablo Roberto Ortega petitions for review of a decision by

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying Ortega’s motion

to reopen his removal proceedings. He argues that the BIA

should have reopened his removal proceedings in order to allow

him to pursue relief under § 212(c) and (h) of the Immigration

and Nationality Act (INA).
No. 05-60812

-2-

This court lacks jurisdiction to consider Ortega’s

argument that the BIA should have reopened his case pursuant

to the BIA’s sua sponte authority. See Enriquez-Alvarado v.

Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 250 (5th Cir. 2004). Ortega’s

contention that this court has the authority to examine sua

sponte whether relief under INA § 212(c) and (h) is available

to Ortega lacks merit. Moreover, Ortega has failed to brief

any other cognizable issues regarding the BIA’s decision. See

Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, Ortega’s petition for review of the BIA’s decision

is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Exhibit 32.1









CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004






In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hybred International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary Kouletas, President of the Company, respectfully certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2004, that:




The Report fully complies with the requirements of the section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.






/s/ Gary Kouletas


Gary Kouletas


President (Principal Executive Officer)




Date: October 5, 2011






This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hybred International, Inc. and will be retained by Hybred International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13630]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology; HIT Standards Committee Meeting

ACTION: Announcement of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the second meeting of the HIT Standards 
Committee in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. 
L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.).

DATES: June 23, 2009, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. [Eastern]

ADDRESSES: The Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500 Calvert Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20008, Diplomat Ballroom.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: http://healthit.hhs.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The meeting will include presentations from the HIT Standards 
Committee Workgroups. The meeting is a Web-based meeting with 
teleconference dial-in. If you have special needs for the meeting, 
please contact (202) 690-7151.

Judith Sparrow,
Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator 
for Health Information Technology.
[FR Doc. E9-13630 Filed 6-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-45-P
II 

111TH

1ST SESSION S. 360 

To limit compensation to officers and directors of entities receiving emergency 

economic assistance from the Government. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 30, 2009 

Mrs. MCCASKILL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To limit compensation to officers and directors of entities 

receiving emergency economic assistance from the Government. 

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 ‘‘Cap Executive Officer 

5 Pay Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMIT ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi8 sion of law or agreement to the contrary, no person who 

9 is an officer, director, executive, or other employee of a 

10 financial institution or other entity that receives or has 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•S 360 IS

1 received funds under the Troubled Asset Relief Program 

2 (or ‘‘TARP’’), established under section 101 of the Emer3 gency Ecomonic Stabilization Act of 2008, may receive an4 nual compensation in excess of the amount of compensa5 tion paid to the President of the United States. 

6 (b) DURATION.—The limitation in subsection (a) 

7 shall be a condition of the receipt of assistance under the 

8 TARP, and of any modification to such assistance that 

9 was received on or before the date of enactment of this 

10 Act, and shall remain in effect with respect to each finan11 cial institution or other entity that receives such assistance 

12 or modification for the duration of the assistance or obli13 gation provided under the TARP. 

14 SEC. 3. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY. 

15 The Secretary shall expeditiously issue such rules as 

16 are necessary to carry out this Act, including with respect 

17 to reimbursement of compensation amounts, as appro18 priate. 

19 SEC. 4. COMPENSATION. 

20 As used in this Act, the term ‘‘compensation’’ in21 cludes wages, salary, deferred compensation, retirement 

22 contributions, options, bonuses, property, and any other 

23 form of compensation or bonus that the Secretary of the 

24 Treasury determines is appropriate. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

No. 1D18-3256

_____________________________ 

CLARENCE LEONTAY FRAZIER, 

Appellant, 

v. 

MARK S. INCH, Secretary, 

Florida Department of 

Corrections, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. 

David Rimmer, Judge. 

August 5, 2019 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur. 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________ 
2 

Clarence Leontay Frazier, Appellant, pro se. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael McDermott, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3473 

AN ACT 

To amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to authorize advances from Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 3473 ES

1 SECTION 1. ADVANCES FROM OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST 

2 FUND FOR DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL. 

3 Section 6002(b) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 

4 U.S.C. 2752) is amended in the second sentence— 

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘Coast Guard’’; 

6 and 

7 (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 

8 following: ‘‘and (2) in the case of the discharge of 

9 oil that began in 2010 in connection with the explo10 sion on, and sinking of, the mobile offshore drilling 

11 unit Deepwater Horizon, may, without further ap12 propriation, obtain 1 or more advances from the 

13 Fund as needed, up to a maximum of $100,000,000 

14 for each advance, with the total amount of all ad15 vances not to exceed the amounts available under 

16 section 9509(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

17 1986, and within 7 days of each advance, shall no18 tify Congress of the amount advanced and the facts 

19 and circumstances necessitating the advance’’. 

20 SEC. 2. BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

21 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

22 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, 

23 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

24 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

25 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

26 by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, pro-
3 

†S 3473 ES

1 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

2 vote on passage. 

Passed the Senate June 9, 2010. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3473 

AN ACT 

To amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to authorfor the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. ize advances from Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
Exhibit 23.1
 

                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                 ----------------------------------

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-69306; No. 33-62887; and No. 33-05987) of 
Michael Baker Corporation of our report dated February 3, 1998, appearing on 
page 51 of the Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated as 
Exhibit 13.1 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
-------------------------
Price Waterhouse LLP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 27, 1998
<PAGE>
#### In the Matter of Marcus Mungo, Appellant, v Norman Bezio, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

Decided June 26, 2012

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<LEGEND> THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CORPORATIONS FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

      <MULTIPLIER> 1

      <S>                           <C>
      <PERIOD-TYPE>                     QUARTER
      <FISCAL-YEAR-END>        DECEMBER 31-1998
      <PERIOD-END>            SEPTEMBER 30-1998
      <CASH>                                  0
      <SECURITIES>                        2,000
      <RECEIVABLES>                           0
      <ALLOWANCES>                            0
      <INVENTORY>                             0
      <CURRENT ASSETS>                        0
      <PP&E>                                  0
      <DEPRECIATION>                          0
      <TOTAL ASSETS>                      2,000
      <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              77,368
      <BONDS>                                 0
      <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
      <PREFERRED>                             0
      <COMMON>                            2,257
      <OTHER-SE>                         77,625
      <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        2,000
      <SALES>                                 0
      <TOTAL-REVENUES>                        0
      <CGS>                                   0
      <TOTAL COSTS>                           0
      <OTHER EXPENSES>                        0
     <LOSS PROVISION>                         0
      <INTEREST EXPENSE>                      0
      <INCOME PRETAX>                         0
      <INCOME-TAX>                            0
      <INCOME CONTINUING>                     0
      <DISCONTINUED>                          0
      <EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
      <CHANGES>                               0
      <NET-INCOME>                            0
      <EPS-BASIC>                           0
      <EPS-DILUTED>                           0
#### KNIGHT v. BALTIMORE *&*O. R. CO.

Civ. No. 3645.

District Court, W. D. New York.

May 6, 1948.

*257William J. Flynn, of Buffalo, N. Y., for plaintiff.

Strang, Bodine, Wright & Combs, of Rochester, N. Y., for defendant.

KNIGHT, District Judge.

Defendant moved to strike out certain allegations of the complaint and the motion was granted, the grounds for so doing being stated in this court’s opinion dated April 29, 1948. D.C., 8 F.R.D. 261. Since then plaintiff has submitted a memorandum, which requires a reconsideration of the court’s decision.

Plaintiff urges that the granting of the motion might tend to bring about the exclusion or rejection of certain evidence relating to the stricken allegations; that motions of this nature are not favored and the moving party must show prejudice; that the pleadings of today “no longer rise or fall by the former academic and metaphysical distinctions.”

Besides four Federal decisions, plaintiff submits long excerpts from the 2d edition (1948) of Moore’s Federal Practice. Moore says (sec. 8:13): “The courts have recognized that the function of pleadings under the Federal Rules is to give fair notice of the claim asserted so as to enable the adverse party to answer and prepare for trial.”

In the allegations stricken from the complaint, defendant was given fair notice of the kind of evidence plaintiff proposes to offer. Defendant, however, insisted that these allegations be stricken. There is authority, cited in the opinion of April 29, 1948, for granting defendant’s motion.

There is nothing in said opinion which precludes plaintiff, upon the trial of this action, from offering competent evidence of prior accidents at the grade crossing in question or proof that the view of defendant’s engineer was obstructed by buildings near the crossing. In its opinion this court said: “Whether evidence of prior accidents at this grade crossing will be admissible at the trial will depend on the kind of evidence offered.”

The complaint alleges in paragraph Eighth “that the operators in charge of said locomotives failed to sound necessary, proper, timely and adequate signals of the approach of said train; that the said crossing was a dangerous one.” In its opinion the court quoted from Sipowicz v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 189 App. Div. 715, 719, 179 N.Y.S. 243, affirmed 231 N.Y. 534, 132 N.E. 877, where it is said: “The physical condition especially surrounding the dangerous grade crossing is an element to be taken into account in the submission of such question, and may be properly considered by the jury in applying the test of reasonable care.”

Upon further consideration the decision of this court striking the allegations from the complaint is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000824894
<NAME> GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II-A
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,185,034
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  761,650
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,946,684
<PP&E>                                      32,406,962
<DEPRECIATION>                              27,068,437
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,233,426
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          215,057
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,859,686
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,233,426
<SALES>                                      1,515,197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,522,150
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,436,116
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 86,034
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             86,034
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    86,034
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-15-00191-CR

MARK EDWARD COVINGTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1524835

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mark Edward Covington was convicted by a Hopkins County jury in this case of witness 

tampering1and assessed punishment of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice 

Correctional Institutions Division for life. This case was tried with a companion case, which is 

the subject of another appeal pending before this Court.2 Covington filed a single, consolidated 

brief covering both appeals in which he contends that the trial court erred (1) in refusing to inquire 

into the qualifications of the grand jury members and (2) in submitting a charge to the jury that 

allowed his conviction on a less than unanimous verdict of guilty. 

The arguments raised in this appeal are precisely the same arguments brought before this 

Court in the companion appeal styled Covington v. State, cause number 06-15-00190-CR. In our 

opinion of this date disposing of that appeal, we found (1) that Covington failed to preserve error 

regarding the qualifications of the grand jurors and (2) that the trial court did not err in its charge 

to the jury. For the reasons set out in that opinion, we overrule Covington’s points of error as they

apply to this appeal.

 

1See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 36.05(a)(2) (West Supp. 2015).

2

In his companion case, filed under cause number 06-15-00190-CR, Covington appeals from his conviction of 

another count of witness tampering.
3

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: March 17, 2016

Date Decided: May 25, 2016

Do Not Publish