alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sterling Chemicals, 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 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:
     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):
    /s/ JOHN R. BEAVERJohn R. BeaverSenior Vice President  Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
Order entered September 21, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00681
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF M .P., MINOR CHILD On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 17
- 08868



### O RDER
The reporter’s record in this appeal has not been filed, although appellant’s docketing statement reflects he requested preparation of the reporter’s record on August 2, 2018. Accordingly, we ORDER Joe Rivera, Official Court Reporter of the 255 th Judicial District Court, to file the record no later than October 22, 2018.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Rivera and the parties.
/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
Order entered December 4, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 00518

- CR

AGEAK M CHOL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judic ial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16

- 30952

- T



### O RDER

A p pellant , who was convicted of indecency with a child by sexual contact, filed his brief
on November 20, 2018. In the brief, he uses the name of the victim. Accordingly, w e STRIKE
appellant’s brief.

We ORDER appellant to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order, an amended
brief that identify the victim and any other child under the age of eighteen either generically
(“victim” or “complaining witness”) or by initia ls only.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to George R. Conkey and the Dallas
County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 I 0 0 74

. YERALDI N E RI NEY v . FRANK SARGENT.

In t h i s ca s e i n v o l v i ng m u l t i p l e part i es , defen d an t Yeral d i ne Ri n ey fi l ed a

m o ti o n t o d i s m i s s Fran k Sarg en t ’ s co m p l ai n t

, wh i ch t h e tri al co u rt d en i ed o n Oct o b er

5

, 2 0 1 6

. Th e t ri al co u rt en t ered a n o r d e r cert i fy i n g i t s ru li n g fo r i m m ed iat e rev i ew

o n Oct o b er 1 8

, 2 0 1 6. Ri n ey fi l ed h er ap p l i cat i o n fo r i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p eal o n Oct o b er

2 7 , 2 0 1 6 . Ho wev er, we l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

. Un d er OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (b ), a p art y m ay req u es t i n t erl o cu to ry rev i ew o n l y i f t h e

t ri al co u rt cert ifi es w i t hi n 1 0 day s o f en t ry o f t he ord er at is su e t hat i m m ed i at e rev i ew

s h o u ld b e h ad

. If t he cert i fi cat e o f i m m ed i at e rev i ew i s n ot en t ered wi t h i n t h at 1 0 -d ay

p eri o d

, i t i s u n ti m el y , an d t h e p art y s eek i n g rev i ew m u s t wai t u n t i l t h e fi nal ju d g m en t

t o ap p eal

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (b ); Tu r n er v. Ha r p er , 2 3 1 G a. 1 75

, 17 6 (2 0 0 SE2 d

7 4 8 ) (1 9 7 3 ). Here, t he tri al co u rt d i d n o t en t er i t s cert i fi cat e of i m m ed i at e rev i ew

wi t h i n 10 d ay s o f th e o rd er Ri n ey s eek s to ap p eal

. A cco rd i n g l y , we lack j u ri s d i ct i o n

t o co ns i d er t h i s ap pl i cat i on fo r i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p eal

, w h i ch i s t h erefo re D ISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 11/22/2016 November 22, 2016
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Point.360 ( the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Haig S. Bagerdjian, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:

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

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


/s/ Haig S. Bagerdjian
--------------------------------
Haig  S. Bagerdjian
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2004
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF WINCHESTER

#### Commonwealth of Virginia v. Laura Foster

September 5, 2003

Case No. (Criminal) 03-712

By Judge John E. Wetsel, Jr.

This case came before the Court on Defendant’s Plea in Bar based on the statute of limitations to a misdemeanor bad check prosecution.

Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments and authorities, it appears to the Court that:

1. The Defendant is charged with a misdemeanor violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-181, which provides that “Any person who, with intend to defraud, shall make ... any check ... knowing at the time of such making ... the maker ... has not sufficient funds in ... such bank ... *shall be guilty of larceny.”*(Emphasis added.)

2. Defendant has filed a plea in bar based on the one year statute of limitations for misdemeanors other than petit larceny set forth in Virginia Code § 19.2-8, claiming that misdemeanor bad check prosecutions are not subject to the five year statute of limitations for petit larceny.

3. The General Assembly has deemed a bad check violation to be larceny. *See Harris v. Commonwealth,*23 Va. App. 311 (1996). Therefore, the five year statute of limitations applies to misdemeanor bad check prosecutions.

Therefore, it is adjudged and ordered that the defendant’s plea in bar is denied.
Exhibit 10.1
 First Amendment to  Third Amended And Restated Plasticizers Production Agreement
 This First Amendment to Third Amended and Restated Plasticizers Production Agreement Amendment terling
Chemicals, Inc. Sterling BASF Corporation BASF Parties
 Preliminary Statements
 1.
    
    The Parties are parties to that certain Third Amended and Restated Plasticizers
Production Agreement dated as of April 1, 2008 (the Existing Agreement).2.
    
    The Parties desire to amend the Existing Agreement in certain respects.
 Now, Therefore
 Amendment of Section 1.01 of the Existing Agreement
 Bulk Storage Tanks
 Amendment of Section 1.01 of the Existing Agreement
 Amendment of Section 2.01(b) of the Existing Agreement




---



##### 



provided,
however,
 Amendment of Section 2.01(e) of the Existing Agreement
  Addition of Section 3.10 to the Existing Agreement
 Storage Tank 56T506 Tank 56T506 56T506 Project provided, however,
 Amendment of Exhibit B of the Existing Agreement
 Effect of Amendment
 -2-




---



##### 



Binding Effect
 Counterparts
 Severability
 Governing Law This Amendment Shall Be Construed and Enforced in
Accordance With, and the Rights of the Parties Shall Be Governed By, the Internal Laws of the State
of New Jersey, Without Reference to Principles of Conflicts of Law.
 Entire Agreement
 In Witness Whereof
 Sterling Chemicals, Inc.
    
    BASF CorporationBy:
    
    By:Printed Name:
    
    Printed Name:Title:
    
    Title:
 -3-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DWIGHT GILLESPIE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 135 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Ludwig Kuttner, Chief Executive Officer, and Charles W. Clayton, Chief Financial
Officer of Hampshire Group, Limited, each hereby certify that:

1)   The  Quarterly  Report of  Hampshire  Group,  Limited  on Form 10-Q for the
     period  ended  April 1,  2006 as filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange
     Commission  on the date  hereof  (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 as of April 1, 2006 and the results of
     operations of the Company for the period then ended.



Date: May 8, 2006                            /s/ Ludwig Kuttner
-----------------                            ---------------------------
                                             Ludwig Kuttner
                                             Chief Executive Officer


Date: May 8, 2006                            /s/ Charles W. Clayton
-----------------                            ---------------------------
                                             Charles W. Clayton
                                             Chief Financial Officer
#### Ronald J. Harrington et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Marian Gage, Respondent-Appellant.

Submitted January 28, 2008;

decided March 18, 2008

*790Motions for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
APOL_EX.10.2_Amendment to Exec Incentive Plan


EXHIBIT 10.2
APOLLO GROUP, INC.
AMENDED AND RESTATED
EXECUTIVE OFFICER PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN


PLAN AMENDMENT


The Apollo Group, Inc. Executive Officer Performance Incentive Plan, as amended and restated (the “Plan”), is hereby further amended, effective December 8, 2011, as follows:
1.    There is hereby added to the end of Paragraph VI. B of the Plan the following new provision: 
“The Five Million Dollar ($5,000,000) limitation on the Maximum Bonus Amount that may be paid to a participant for any given Performance Period shall be applied on an aggregate basis so that if an individual participates in two or more Performance Periods that commence in the same fiscal year of Company, the bonus amounts payable to that participant for those particular Performance Periods shall not exceed Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) in total.” 
2.    Except as modified by this Plan Amendment, all the terms and provisions of the Plan shall continue in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, APOLLO GROUP, INC. has caused this Plan Amendment to be executed on its behalf by its duly-authorized officer on this 8th day of December 2011.


	
			
	APOLLO GROUP, INC.

	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Sean Martin

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	TITLE:
	Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

Juywy 87, 1939

%onorabloL. **A.** Wooda State 

### supsrintonaent of Publio Instruotioa huatia, Taxa8___.__- ___- -. .1. .Iy&ls, January &I, IWW, pane z.

**We do**  **not find**  **a oa8e**  **wberoln a**  **County Superln**  **tendent** has bean removed from offioa,henoa; we vlll ear the analogy,**and** in doing .this, we hold as a matter of law, that a County Superintendent is a 00miy 0rf i0er. Y---Q--J 6% eta are a eubdivlelon OS **a** county, and eohool **truateee are**  county ofSioex5.w Hendricksvs. state, 49 S. V. 705. Klnbroughvs. Barnett. (SuFrese couxt). .58 3. W., 18G. *The Commissioner*8 Court have not the authorityto judlolally determinea rWt of one to an otfioe or to remove a legally qualifiedofficer from his ofrioa, for the jurlsdlotlon

l~~thlrmatter 110s within tha exoluslrecognizance**of** the **Dietriot** Courfhw Ellln~ervs. Ranklm, 89 8. **W.,** 840. Thie holdinp:

is supportedby 8 line OT deoi8ion olted **by Tax.**  **Jur.** Vol. U, pages 579.87+5?9,,and therein the rule is laid down: **The Court**  **(Comlasloaer  ** Court)** **has no**  authority jwlioially, to daterml.na o? onm to an offtoe or to remove a qualifiedofficer from offioe, the dlotfon in,thlamatter 110s within oognlseaoaof tha Distriot Gourt.* the right legally E&i3i*a

In view or the faota, **OYOXI thou&h,**  **that ln**  adztinlstratlvenetters the State Superintendent must **bm** appaa$ed to in 80818 instanoesbefore reooureo can bs had to Couxtththe&(l.asa **matter** of law that any prooeadlngs

had, or hearing held betore a Stat0 Superintendentot **Publio** Instruotlon, regardin&**a** removalto remove a County Superintendent Srom **be void**  ana of,no foroe and effeot. nor an ettespt oSTloe4,,

would Yours very truly

G3B:GFS
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1



                       DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
              NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK OPTION AND RETAINER PLAN

1.   In 1997, Daisytek International Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
     "Company"), adopted the Non-Employee Director Stock Option and Retainer
     Plan (the "Plan"). The Company desires to amend the Plan as set forth
     herein:

2.   Section 3.5 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
     follows: Options shall be granted to each Director under this Plan as
     determined by the Board.

3.   The remaining terms and provisions of the Plan shall continue in full force
     and effect.

4.   This First Amendment to the Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors of
     the Company on November 7, 2001.
Exhibit
32.2
 
 
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Point.360 ( the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), I, Alan R. Steel, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:
 
 (1)
    The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 
 (2)
    The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.  /s/
Alan R. Steel
 Alan R.
Steel
 Chief
Financial Officer
 May 12,
2005
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2471 

To amend section 2710 of title 18, United States Code, to clarify that 

a video tape service provider may obtain a consumer’s informed, written 

consent on an ongoing basis and that consent may be obtained through 

the Internet. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 8, 2011 

Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself, Mr. COBLE, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, and Ms. 

LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 2710 of title 18, United States Code, 

to clarify that a video tape service provider may obtain 

a consumer’s informed, written consent on an ongoing 

basis and that consent may be obtained through the 

Internet. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. 

4 Section 2710(b)(2) of title 18, United States Code, 

5 is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting 

6 the following: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2471 IH

1 ‘‘(B) to any person with the informed, 

2 written consent (including through an electronic 

3 means using the Internet) of the consumer 

4 given at one or both of the following times: 

5 ‘‘(i) The time the disclosure is sought. 

6 ‘‘(ii) In advance for a set period of 

7 time or until consent is withdrawn by such 

8 consumer.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K OF
BERLITZ INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      34,426
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               57,287
<ALLOWANCES>                                3,102
<INVENTORY>                                 10,405
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            115,158
<PP&E>                                      73,849
<DEPRECIATION>                              26,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              697,020
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       113,272
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                                    1,003
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                  337,684
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                697,020
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            446,181
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               267,176
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            18,024
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,976
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             1,722
<INCOME-TAX>                                7,715
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (5,325)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             (2,154)
<CHANGES>                                   (5,605)
<NET-INCOME>                                (13,084)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (1.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (1.37)


</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JESUS MARTINEZ-GONZALEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-30203

D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00109-WFN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2011** 

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. 

Jesus Martinez-Gonzalez appeals from the 48-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for being an alien in the United States after

deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

MAR 14 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-30203

Martinez-Gonzalez argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable

given the nature of the offense, his motivation for reentering the United States, and

his limited and stale criminal history. He further contends that the 16-level prior

conviction sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) is per se

unreasonable and resulted in a sentence that was greater than necessary.

 Martinez-Gonzalez’s argument that the 16-level sentencing enhancement is

per se unreasonable fails. See United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050,

1054 (9th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Barsumyan, 517 F.3d 1154, 1159

(9th Cir. 2008) (policy-based argument against the Guidelines must be asserted on

the ground that its operation in a particular case results in a sentence that is

unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)). 

In light of the totality of the circumstances and the § 3553(a) factors, the

below-Guidelines sentence in this case is not substantively unreasonable. See Gall

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2515 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2515

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the dollar 
 limitation on employer-provided group term life insurance that can be 
            excluded from the gross income of the employee.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 2011

 Mr. Burgess introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the dollar 
 limitation on employer-provided group term life insurance that can be 
            excluded from the gross income of the employee.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN LIMITATION ON EXCLUSION FOR EMPLOYER-PROVIDED 
              GROUP TERM LIFE INSURANCE PURCHASED FOR EMPLOYEES.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 79(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting 
``$350,000''.
    (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Section 79 of such Code is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(f) Inflation Adjustment.--
            ``(1) In general.--In the case of any taxable year 
        beginning after 2012, the $350,000 amount under subsection 
        (a)(1) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
                    ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
                    ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined 
                under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which 
                the taxable year begins, determined by substituting 
                `2011' for `1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
            ``(2) Rounding.--If any amount as adjusted under paragraph 
        (1) is not a multiple of $10,000, such amount shall be rounded 
        to the nearest multiple of $10,000.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2011.
                                 <all>
```