alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONI, Mark E. Klimpel, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Red Trail Energy, LLC;2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or 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 quarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly 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 this quarterlyreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;andc) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;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 the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of governors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Dated: November 19, 2007         /s/ Mark E. Klimpel   Mark E. Klimpel   Chief Financial Officer
Order entered July 15, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-10-00235-CV

MARTIN, WILLIAM, Appellant

V.

PLAINSCAPITAL BANK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-01773-2008

ORDER

The parties’ joint motion for leave to file supplemental briefs on remand is GRANTED. 

The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs limited to 2400 words by August 7, 2015 and 

response briefs limited to 2400 words by August 31, 2015.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE
S05Y0919.

#### IN THE MATTER OF PATRICK SCOTT BROWN.

(621 SE2d 464)

Decided October 24, 2005.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

Per curiam.

This matter is before the Court on the Notice of Discipline filed by the State Bar against Respondent Patrick Scott Brown in which it alleged that he violated Rules 5.5 and 9.3 of Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The State Bar served the Notice of Discipline on Brown by publication in accordance with Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii) and, as he failed to reject the Notice, Brown is in default, has no right to an evidentiary hearing, and is subject to the discipline of this Court, see Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b).

As deemed admitted by his default, Brown elected to become an inactive member of the State Bar in 1997 but in 2003, while still inactive, he engaged in the practice of law by representing a client in a drug condemnation case, thus violating Rule 5.5. A violation of Rule 5.5 is punishable by disbarment and we agree with the State Bar that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this case. Accordingly, we hereby order that the name of Patrick Scott Brown be removed from the rolls of attorneys authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Disbarred.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Cosmo La Forgia, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of VS Holdings, Inc.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly
report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) 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 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 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

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

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control 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 control
over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2006



|    |  |                                          
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Cosmo La Forgia                      
|    |  | Cosmo La Forgia Vice President of Finance
# covid_table19_q7_naics
Exhibit 10.2 for Royal Finance Inc Form S-8



EXHIBIT 10.2
                          EMPLOYMENT AND FEE AGREEMENT
                          ----------------------------

     THIS AGREEMENT made this 7th day of December, 2001, by and between Royal
Finance, Inc. (hereinafter "CLIENT") with a mailing address of 1481 South
Military Trail, Suite 12, West Palm Beach, Florida 33415 and telephone number
(561) 649-3901 and Richard P. Greene, P.A. (hereinafter "ATTORNEY").

     1. CLIENT retains ATTORNEY to represent CLIENT as Attorney at Law regarding
Corporate/Securities related matters and authorizes and empowers ATTORNEY to do
all things reasonably necessary to complete corporate and securities
transactions with CLIENT'S consent (other than in connection with capital
raising transactions) and agrees to retain attorney for the services rendered on
the following terms and conditions:

     a.   On the basis of the time expended by ATTORNEY, a retainer shall
          consist of 10,000 shares of common stock of Royal Finance, Inc. All
          referenced shares shall be registered pursuant to a Registration
          Statement on Form S-8.
     b.   CLIENT shall also be responsible for costs incurred including, but not
          limited to, long distance phone calls, transcripts, photocopies,
          postage, filing fees, and costs of newspaper publications.  Advanced
          costs that are not expended during the course of the representation
          are to be returned to the client at the conclusion of the
          representation, unless ATTORNEY and CLIENT agree otherwise in writing.

     2. ATTORNEY will render a final statement for services rendered and costs
incurred. If CLIENT disagrees with any charge for fees or costs, CLIENT must
notify ATTORNEY in writing within ten (10) days after the date of mailing.
Otherwise, all charges are agreed by CLIENT to be approved and accepted. All
bills are due when rendered.

     3.  CLIENT understands and agrees that ATTORNEY has made no guarantee
regarding the successful outcome or termination of the engagement and all
expressions pertaining thereto are matters of opinion. Should it be necessary to
institute legal proceedings for the collection of any part of the ATTORNEY'S
compensation or costs as set forth above, then CLIENT agrees to pay all court
costs and reasonable attorneys fees with regard to the collection of same.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the date first
mentioned above.

ACCEPTED:
Richard P. Greene, P.A.                              Royal Finance, Inc.

By: /s/ Richard P. Greene                       By:  /s/ Douglas Meyers
---------------------------                     -------------------------------
      Richard P. Greene                              Douglas Meyers, CEO
FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 22 2015
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Courts for the District of Columbia
)
ROBERT DOBYNS, )
)
Petitioner, )
») Case: 1:15-cv-01179 (G Deck)
v. ) Assigned To : Unassigned
) Assign. Date : 7/22/2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Description: Habeas Corpus/2255
)
Respondent. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s pro se Motion for Judgment of Acquittal
Notwithstanding the Verdict, or, in the Alternative, for New Trial, which is construed as a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons discussed below, this matter will be
dismissed.

Petitioner has been convicted in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence. See Mem. in
Support of Motion for J. of Acquittal and/or Mot. for New Trial at 1-2. Petitioner’s motions
seeking post-conviction relief in the Superior Court have been denied. See id. at6. Now
petitioner asks this Court to “review the decision made by the trial Judge and make an
independent finding of its own since it appears that the D.C. Code [§] 23-110 [motion]
previously filed is not the vehicle through which Petitioner will receive any fair consideration.”

Id. at 12.


“Under D.C. Code § 23-110, a prisoner may seek to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence
on any of four grounds: (1) the sentence is unconstitutional or illegal; (2) the Superior Court did
not have jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the sentence exceeded the maximum authorized
by law; or (4) the sentence is subject to collateral attack.” Alston v. United States, 590 A.2d 511,
513 (D.C. 1991). Such a motion must be filed in the Superior Court, see D.C. Code § 23-110(a),
and “shall not be entertained . . . by any Federal . . . court if it appears that the [prisoner] has
failed to make a motion for relief under this section or that the Superior Court has denied him
relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of his detention.” D.C. Code § 23-110(g); see Williams v. Martinez, 586 F.3d 995, 998
(D.C. Cir. 2009) (“Section 23-110(g)’s plain language makes clear that it only divests federal
courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions by prisoners who could have raised viable claims
pursuant to section 23-110(a).”).

Petitioner does not demonstrate that the remedy available to him under D.C. Code § 23-
110 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his conviction and subsequent
incarceration. His apparent lack of success in prior collateral attacks on his conviction does not
render his local remedy inadequate or ineffective. See Wilson v. Office of the Chairperson, 892
F. Supp. 277, 280 (D.D.C. 1995). Petitioner has no recourse in this federal district court and,
therefore, the Court will deny the petition and dismiss this action. See Watson v. Middlebrooks,
No. 09-1682, 2009 WL 3163067, at *2 (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 2009).

An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

a j
DATE: 7 p20 _ (i~

UnitedAtates District Judge
#### Loomis *et al. v.*New York & Cleveland Gas Coal Co.

*(Circuit Court, N. D. New York.*

January *4,*1888.)

Removal of Causes—Citizenship—Act of March 3, 1887.

A suit brought in the supreme court of New York by a citizen of that state against a Pennsylvania corporation, was removed, on the defendant’s motion, to the circuit court of the United States, under the removal act of March 3, .1887. *Held,*that the removal was authorized by the statute, the defendant not being a resident of New York, and a motion to remand to the state court must be denied; following *Fales*v. *Railway Co.,*32 Fed. Rep. 673.

At Law. Motion to remand cause to state court.

*Andey Wilcox,*for plaintiffs.

*George J. Sicard,*for defendant.

Coxe, J.

The plaintiffs are citizens of New York, residing at Buffalo, in this district. The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania. The action was commenced in the supreme court of this state in April of the present year. • The defendant appeared and removed the cause to this court. The plaintiffs now' move to remand, upon the ground that under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, this court has no jurisdiction, the defendant being a citizen of Pennsylvania.

It will be seen that the motion involves the precise question passed upon in the following causes: *County of Yuba*v. *Mining Co.,*32 Fed. Rep. 183; *Fales*v. *Railway Co.,*Id. 673; *Telegraph Co.*v. *Brown,*Id. 337. In the California case jurisdiction was denied by Judge Sawyer, the decision being concurred in by Mr. Justice Field and Judge Sabjn. In the Iowa and Illinois cases jurisdiction was sustained by Judges Shiras and Gresham, respectively, and in the Missouri case the views expressed by Judge Brewer make it quite clear that he is in accord with the latter construction. The adverse views as to the true interpretation of the indeterminate language of the act of 1887 are fully and ably presented by these decisions. It is thought that no argument which is not a recapitulation of what has been already said can do contributed to the controversy on either side. Suffice it is to say that, after a Ccireful examination of the statute, in the light of those decisions, I am constrained to adopt the view that the court has jurisdiction, and that the cause should be retained. The statute should, if possible, be so construed as to give vitality to every part, and this has, it is thought, been successfully accomplished by Judge Siiiras in the *Miles Case, supra.*To the able argument there presented I have nothing to add. I am authorized to say that the same opinion is entertained by Judges Wallace and Lacombe.

The motion to remand must be denied,
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00726-CV

Morris Dwayne DEBROW,

Appellant

v.

Tiffany Lashaw DEBROW,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-CI-21524

Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 18, 2023

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

On August 25, 2023, the trial court clerk filed a notification of late record, stating that the 

appellant had failed to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. On September 18, 2023, we 

ordered appellant to provide written proof to this court within ten days that either (1) the clerk’s 

fee had been paid or arrangements had been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant was 

entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. We warned that if appellant failed to respond, 

this appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant failed to respond. We, therefore, 

dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b) (allowing appellate courts 
04-23-00726-CV

- 2 -

to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution when an appellant fails to pay or make arrangements 

to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing appellate 

courts to dismiss an appeal when an appellant fails to comply with a court order).

PER CURIAM
@article{1214201,
  author = {Jiale Shi and Nathan Rebello and Dylan Walsh and Michael Deagen and Bruno Salomao Leao and Debra Audus and Bradley Olsen},
  title = {Quantifying Pairwise Similarity for Complex Polymers},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-09-06 04:09:00},
  publisher = {Macromolecules},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936441},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.3c00761},
  language = {en},
}
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DUSTIN SHANE GRAYDON,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00068-CR

Appeal from the

213th District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas 

(TC# 1363178D)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS Sheila Walker’s third request for an extension of time within which 

to file the Reporter’s Record until August 12, 2015. NO FURTHER REQUESTS FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER’S RECORD WILL BE CONSIDERED 

BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that Sheila Walker, Official Court Reporter for the 213th District 

Court for Tarrant County, Texas, prepare the Reporter’s Record and forward the same to this 

Court on or before August 12, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of July, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00372-CR

Curtis Allen Garrison

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

163rd District Court of Orange County, Texas

Trial Cause No. B-130,137-R

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 16, 2015
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ William J. Horan

William J. Horan, Chairman, President and Director(Principal Executive Officer)Dated: November 14, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 711 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 711

   Recognizing and celebrating the 200th anniversary of the entry of 
           Alabama into the Union as the twenty-second State.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 19, 2019

Mrs. Roby (for herself, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Brooks of Alabama, Mr. Byrne, 
Mr. Palmer, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, and Ms. Sewell of Alabama) submitted 
   the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Recognizing and celebrating the 200th anniversary of the entry of 
           Alabama into the Union as the twenty-second State.

Whereas the United States Congress created the Alabama Territory from the 
        eastern half of the Mississippi Territory on March 3, 1817;
Whereas, by 1819, the birth and growth of cities, towns, and communities in the 
        Alabama Territory ensured that the population of the territory had 
        developed sufficiently to achieve the minimum number of inhabitants 
        required by Congress to qualify for statehood;
Whereas the United States Congress and President James Monroe approved statehood 
        for the Alabama Territory on December 14, 1819, making it the Nation's 
        twenty-second State;
Whereas December 14, 2019, marks the 200th anniversary of the attainment of 
        statehood by Alabama; and
Whereas this bicentennial anniversary is a monumental occasion to celebrate and 
        commemorate the achievements of the great State of Alabama: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes and 
celebrates the 200th anniversary of the entry of Alabama into the Union 
as the twenty-second State.
                                 <all>
```
BLS Technical Advisory Committee 

November 20, 2020

 

10:00 a.m. Commissioner’s Welcome and Review of Agency Developments

10:30 a.m. JOLTS Experimental State Estimates Background and Priorities

Presenters: David Talan, BLS – Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics

Discussants: Keith Phillips, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

Aysegul Sahin, University of Texas at Austin

11:30 a.m. Break

11:45 a.m. A Review of Hedonic Price Adjustment Techniques for Products Experiencing Rapid 

and Complex Quality Change

Presenters: Dee Bathgate, BLS – Office of Price and Living Conditions

Craig Brown, BLS – Office of Price and Living Conditions

Steve Sawyer, BLS – Office of Price and Living Conditions

Discussants: Marshall Reinsdorf, International Monetary Fund

Carol Corrado, The Conference Board

12:45 p.m. Break

1:45 p.m. Confidence Intervals for Preliminary Estimates of Quarterly Labor Productivity

Presenter: Jay Stewart, BLS – Office of Productivity and Technology

Discussants: Tara Sinclair, The George Washington University

Brady West, University of Michigan

2:45 p.m. Concluding Remarks

3:00 p.m. Conclusion

All times Eastern Standard Time. Please contact BLSTAC@bls.gov for questions.

Register at https://blstac.eventbrite.com
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 08, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 08, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15A2019. LEWIS JONES v. SHERYL D. PIERCE, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF

RALPH FISHER, DECEASED.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.