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

Certification Pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a), 
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Allen L. Leverett, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Wisconsin 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.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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(s) 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 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(s) 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 functions):

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:          March 2, 2007

/s/ALLEN L. LEVERETT                  Allen L. Leverett
                  Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 41208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18435]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[S-102-2017]


Approval of Expanded Subzone Status, 5.11, Inc.; Modesto, Lathrop 
and Manteca, California

    On June 29, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade 
Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Port of 
Stockton, grantee of FTZ 231, requesting expanded subzone status 
subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 231, on behalf of 5.11, 
Inc., in Manteca, California.
    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and 
Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public 
comment (82 FR 31291, July 6, 2017). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed 
the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval. 
Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive 
Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to expand Subzone 
231B was approved on August 17, 2017, subject to the FTZ Act and the 
Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to 
FTZ 231's 2,000-acre activation limit.

    Dated: August 24, 2017.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18435 Filed 8-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ATLANTIC COMMUNITY BANKERS

BANK, INC., AND JON EVANS,

 Respondents

 v.

CHARLES DANIELS AND IMRAN DALVI,

 Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 295 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-04905 and form S-8 No.333-106426) pertaining to the National Technical Systems, Inc. 1994 StockOption Plan and the National Technical Systems, Inc. 2002 Stock Option Plan,and in the related Prospectuses, of our report dated April 14, 2006, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of NationalTechnical Systems, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the yearended January 31, 2006.

 

 
|                       | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |   |
|----------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
|                       |
|                       |
| Woodland Hills, California |
| April 26, 2006             |

 

----
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add Alternative Delivery Provider Reseller 1 product to the Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         August 23, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lauren Schuttloffel, (202) 268-4198.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642, on August 15, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Alternative Delivery Provider Reseller 1 Contracts to the Competitive Products List, and Notice of Filing (Under Seal) of Contract and Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal. Documents are available at                           ( print page 40026)    *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2017-170 and CP2017-268.                

Stanley F. Mires,

Attorney, Federal Compliance.

[FR Doc. 2017-17826 Filed 8-22-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 376 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 376

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude payments received 
 under the Work Colleges Program from gross income, including payments 
                     made from institutional funds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 4, 2015

  Mr. Kirk (for himself, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. 
Leahy) 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 exclude payments received 
 under the Work Colleges Program from gross income, including payments 
                     made from institutional funds.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION FOR AMOUNTS RECEIVED UNDER THE WORK COLLEGES 
              PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 117(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of 
subparagraph (A), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) 
and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(C) a comprehensive student work-learning-service 
                program (as defined in section 448(e) of the Higher 
                Education Act of 1965) operated by a work college (as 
                defined in such section).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts received in taxable years beginning after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 30, 2020

t0929

Order 

Clerk

September 30, 2020

158240 (88)(97)

SUSAN BISIO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 158240

COA: 335422

Oakland CC: 2015-150462-CZ

THE CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF

CLARKSTON,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to file a reply to the answer to the motion for 

rehearing is GRANTED, and the reply filed with the motion is accepted for filing. The 

motion for rehearing of this Court’s July 24, 2020 opinion is considered, and it is 

DENIED. 

VIVIANO, J. (dissenting). 

I would grant defendant-appellee’s motion for rehearing and vacate the Court’s 

opinion in order to allow the parties and amici curiae an opportunity to address the merits 

of the new legal theory adopted by the majority opinion.
#### Dennis Gale HUBBARD, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. State of WEST VIRGINIA; Mercer County Sheriffs Department; Bluefield, West Virginia Police Department; Mercer County Prosecuting Attorneys; Southern Regional Jail, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 07-7354.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 25, 2008.

*526Dennis Gale Hubbard, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Patrick Houdyschell, Jr., West Virginia Division Of Corrections, Charleston, West Virginia; Duane J. Ruggier, II, Jennifer E. Tully, Pullin, Fowler & Flanagan, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia; Chad Mario Cardinal, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Dennis Gale Hubbard appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Hubbard v. West Virginia,*No. 1:06-cv-00610 (S.D.W.Va. Aug. 30, 2007). We deny Hubbard’s motion for an injunction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 12.1
 GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
 Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(in millions)
 Nine FiscalMonthsEndedSept 26,
    
    
    Year Ended December 31,2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003EARNINGS, AS DEFINEDEarnings (loss) from operations before income
taxes and before adjustments for minority
interests in consolidated subsidiaries
and after eliminating undistributed
earnings of equity method investees
    
    $
    310.0
    
    
    $
    307.8
    
    
    $
    204.3
    
    
    $
    61.5
    
    
    $
    18.5
    
    
    $
    (1.2
    )Preferred stock dividend (pre-tax equivalent)
    
    
    (0.3
    )
    
    
    (0.5
    )
    
    
    (0.5
    )
    
    
    (33.8
    )
    
    
    (9.2
    )
    
    
    (0.9
    )Fixed charges
    
    
    51.5
    
    
    
    52.5
    
    
    
    43.3
    
    
    
    76.7
    
    
    
    49.4
    
    
    
    53.6TOTAL EARNINGS, AS DEFINED
    
    $
    361.2
    
    
    $
    359.8
    
    
    $
    247.1
    
    
    $
    104.4
    
    
    $
    58.7
    
    
    $
    51.5FIXED CHARGES, AS DEFINEDInterest expense
    
    $
    43.5
    
    
    $
    43.9
    
    
    $
    36.9
    
    
    $
    36.5
    
    
    $
    35.0
    
    
    $
    45.3Amortization of capitalized expenses related
to debt
    
    
    5.0
    
    
    
    4.5
    
    
    
    3.1
    
    
    
    3.4
    
    
    
    2.7
    
    
    
    4.5Preferred stock dividend (pre-tax equivalent)
    
    
    0.3
    
    
    
    0.5
    
    
    
    0.5
    
    
    
    33.8
    
    
    
    9.2
    
    
    
    0.9Interest component of rent expense
    
    
    2.7
    
    
    
    3.6
    
    
    
    2.8
    
    
    
    3.0
    
    
    
    2.5
    
    
    
    2.9TOTAL FIXED CHARGES, AS DEFINED
    
    $
    51.5
    
    
    $
    52.5
    
    
    $
    43.3
    
    
    $
    76.7
    
    
    $
    49.4
    
    
    $
    53.6RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
    
    
    7.0
    
    
    
    6.9
    
    
    
    5.7
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
exhibit_10-3.htm






  





  











  








Exhibit 10.3







FIRST AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IN CONTROL/SEVERANCE AGREEMENT







This First Amendment to Change in Control/Severance Agreement (the “Amendment”) dated effective as of December 6, 2011, is entered into by and between Adams Resources & Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) and Sharon Davis (nee Copeland) (“Key Employee”).







WHEREAS, Key Employee and the Company entered into that Change in Control/Severance Agreement (“Agreement”) dated September 20, 2008 (the “Agreement”), which Agreement provided for certain protections to Key Employee by the Company in the event of a change in control subject to the terms and conditions as set forth therein; and







WHEREAS, the Agreement is now in full force and effect and the Company and Key Employee mutually desire to hereby modify and amend said Agreement to the extent and in the manner hereinafter specified.







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual promises contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and Key Employee do hereby mutually agree as follows:







Section 1.                      Amendment to Section 2 of the Agreement.  Section 2 of the Agreement be and the same is hereby amended to hereafter be and read as follows:







Section 2.   Term of Agreement.  The Term of this Agreement shall commence on September 20, 2008 (the “Effective Date”) and shall continue in effect through the first anniversary following a Change in Control.  In the event a Change in Control has not occurred on or before September 19, 2014, this Agreement shall immediately terminate and be of no further force and effect.







Section 2.                      Miscellaneous.







(a)           This Amendment may be amended or modified only by written instrument executed by the Company and Key Employee.







(b)           Except as expressly stated in this Amendment, the parties hereto hereby acknowledge and agree that the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms without any amendment, modification or waiver thereto.







(c)           This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.







(d)           This Amendment and the Agreement embodies the entire agreement and understanding of the parties hereto in respect of the subject matter hereof.







[Signature page follows]






  





  











  








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Amendment effective as of the date first above written.












ADAMS RESOURCES & ENERGY, INC.

















By____________________________________


Frank T. "Chip" Webster


President and Chief Operating Officer






















KEY EMPLOYEE







_________________________________


Sharon Davis
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Arizona Gold and Onyx Mining Company f/k/a Viking Capital Group, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, Dick Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operationsof the Company.

 

May 8, 2018

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided tothe Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1

   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                     OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Edward L. Machulak, Chairman, President, Treasurer, Chief Executive,
Operating and Financial Officer of Commerce Group Corp., (the "Company"),
hereby 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 Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31,
    2005, (the "Form 10-K"), 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
    material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
    of the Company.

Date:  July 5, 2005                /s/ Edward L. Machulak
                                   -------------------------------
                                   Edward L. Machulak
                                   Chairman, President, Treasurer,
                                   Chief Executive, Operating and
                                   Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AMELIA RODRIGUEZ LEDEZMA,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-73531

Agency No. A090-034-284

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2016** 

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Amelia Rodriguez Ledezma, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to

reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

FILED

DEC 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
constitutional claims and questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785,

791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

We generally lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not

to reopen proceedings sua sponte, but retain limited jurisdiction to review for legal

or constitutional error. Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir.

2011); Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016). Rodriguez Ledezma’s

due process claims fail, where she concedes she was not statutorily eligible for a

waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) at the time of her deportation

proceedings, and the immigration judge (“IJ”) had no duty to inform her about

forms of relief for which she was not eligible. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,

1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process

claim); U.S. v. Lopez-Velasquez, 629 F.3d 894, 901 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc)

(“[A]n IJ’s duty is limited to informing an alien of a reasonable possibility that the

alien is eligible for relief at the time of the hearing.”). 

Rodriguez Ledezma’s claim that the BIA failed to address issues in the

denial of her motion to reopen is not supported by the record. See Najmabadi v.

Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding the BIA adequately

considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 14-73531
<table class="regular" id="BLStable_2021_4_20_14_21" style="width: 95%;"><caption><span class="tableTitle">Chart 4. Percentage of establishments that created or modified sick leave or paid-time-off plans because of COVID-19, June 2020</span></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th style="vertical-align: middle; min-width: 80px;" rowspan="1" scope="col">Category</th>
<th scope="col">Percent</th>
<th scope="col">Confidence interval</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>All establishments</p>
</th>
<td>25</td>
<td>7.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>Goods producing</p>
</th>
<td>17</td>
<td>7.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Service providing</p>
</th>
<td>26</td>
<td>8.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>1 to 99 workers</p>
</th>
<td>24</td>
<td>8.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>100 or more workers</p>
</th>
<td>45</td>
<td>12.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot id="BLStable_2021_4_20_14_21_footnotes" style="display: table-footer-group;">
<tr class="footnotes">
<td class="footnotes" colspan="3">
<p>Note: COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019.</p>
<p>Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Compensation Survey supplement.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
<p></p>