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

CERTIFICATION

I, Harris Williams, Chief Financial Officer of The Reader's Digest Association, Inc., certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 of The Reader's Digest Association, 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 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



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 functions):



Date: September 29, 2008

/s/HARRIS WILLIAMSHarris Williams Acting Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DONNA PERRY, GUARDIAN OF EMMA PERRY,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES and PALM GARDEN OF 

WEST PALM BEACH,

Appellees.

No. 4D16-3789

[March 1, 2018]

Appeal from the State of Florida, Department of Children and Families; 

L.T. Case No. 16N-00078.

Donna Perry, West Palm Beach, pro se.

Thomas W. Caufman of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Tampa, 

for appellee Palm Garden of West Palm Beach.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
the undersigned officer of AMF Bowling Worldwide, Inc. (the Company), certifies that:



|1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 2, 2006 (the Report) of the Company to which this certification is an exhibit fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of April 2, 2006 and for
the period then ended.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 16, 2006



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Frederick R. Hipp                
|Frederick R. Hipp                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer



48
#### UNITED STATES of America v. George GOGEL and Tessie Gogel, Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Jan. 12, 1956.

Paul W. Williams, U. S. Atty., for Southern District of New York, New York City, Dennis C. Mahoney, New York City, of counsel, for United States of America.

Moses Polakoff, New York City, for defendants.

IRVING R. KAUFMAN, District Judge.

By this motion, defendants seek an opportunity to inspect the transcript of an unsigned question and answer statement given by the defendant George Gogel to an agent of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. In an opinion filed earlier today, I denied a similar motion seeking examination of a defendant’s statements in a bribery case. United States v. Louie Gim Hall, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1956, 18 F.R.D. 384. I there held! that the limited discovery provisions of Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., do not extend to statements made by defendant to *108government agents, and that Rule 17(c) cannot be used as a device to circumvent this restriction. Pre-trial inspection under Rule 17(c) will only be granted pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum issued by defendant in a legitimate effort to obtain possible evidence where it appears that postponing production of the requested documents until trial time will tend unreasonably to delay the trial. As I stated in my earlier opinion, it is doubtful if defendant intends to use such a statement as evidence; further, should he so intend, the trial will not be unreasonably delayed in order to afford counsel the time necessary at the trial to inspect the 16 page document which is being withheld. Motion denied. So ordered.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3013 

To prohibit assistance to Pakistan. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 

Mr. POE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit assistance to Pakistan. 

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 ‘‘Pakistan Account5 ability Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO PAKISTAN. 

7 (a) PROHIBITION.—Except as provided in subsection 

8 (b), assistance may not be provided to Pakistan under any 

9 provision of law. 

10 (b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply with 

11 respect to assistance to ensure the security of nuclear 

12 weapons. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3013 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act shall take effect on 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply with 

3 respect to amounts allocated for assistance to Pakistan 

4 that are unexpended on or after such date. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-30855 USDC No. 95-CV-121

__________________ RAYWARD GROGAN, JR., Petitioner-Appellant,
versus TERRY TERRELL, Warden, Allen Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

- - - - - - - - - - February 6, 1996
Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Rayward Grogan, Jr. moves this court for a certificate of probable cause (CPC). The issuance of a CPC is unnecessary to establish appellate jurisdiction because the detention complained of, loss of good-time credit, does not arise out of process issued by a state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Therefore, the petitioner's motion for CPC is DENIED as unnecessary. Grogan's petition is construed as being brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because he does not contest the legality of his conviction or the validity of his initial sentence. See Story v. Collins , 920 F.2d 1247, 1250 (5th Cir. 1991) (jurisdictionNo. 95-30855 -2- over state prisoner's good-conduct claim is based on § 2241 rather than § 2254). The district court determined that although Grogan had not exhausted his state-court remedies, he was procedurally barred from doing so. The respondents and Grogan do not dispute that he was procedurally barred from bringing his claim in state court. Although the district court erroneously disposed of the petition as a § 1983 action, the procedural-default doctrine forecloses federal review. Duff-Smith v. Collins , 973 F.2d 1175, 1180 (5th Cir. 1992)(§ 2254 case), cert. denied , 113 S. Ct. 1958 (1993). AFFIRMED.
#### Michael O’GRADY, Appellant, v. MARATHON COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY; Synthia O’Grady; Mort McBain; Thomas Finley; Scott Corbett; Corbett Law Office; Paul Dirkse; Jane Huebsch; Robin Bentley; Bonnie Larsen-Rainville; Jenifer Soley; Stuart Rottier; Kelley Weber; Pietz and Slater; Donna Siedel; Youa Taylor; Michael Roman; Mark Klinner; Zalewski, Klinner and Kramer; Daniel Klint, Appellees.

No. 06-3103.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 6, 2008.

Filed: June 26, 2008.

Before BYE, M. SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Michael O’Grady appeals the district court’s1 judgment dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Following careful de novo review, we conclude dismissal was proper. *See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Carp.,*544 U.S. 280, 283-85, 287-88 n. 2, 292 n. 8, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005); *Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n,*457 U.S. 423, 431-32, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B. The pending motions are denied.

1

. The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jeanne J. Graham, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
DENIED and Opinion Filed August 20, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00801-CV 

IN RE SANTIAGO MARTINEZ, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 301st Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-17-18712 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Miskel 

Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness 

In his July 3, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus, relator seeks relief from the 

trial court’s denial of his motion to modify temporary orders. 

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires a relator to show that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and that the relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. 

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). After reviewing relator’s petition and the record before us, we conclude 

that relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.8(a). Additionally, based on our review, relator’s petition and its attached 
 –2– 

appendix contain unredacted sensitive data—such as a minor’s full name—in 

violation of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9. 

Accordingly, we strike relator’s petition and its attached appendix. 

240801F.P05 

/Robbie Partida-Kipness/

ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS 

JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

Consent of Independent RegisteredPublic Accounting Firm

 

The Board of DirectorsGardenburger, Inc.:

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-64622, 33-64624,33-76764, 333-79451, 333-79455 and 333-61858) on Form S-8 and (Nos. 333-56775and 333-79653) on Form S-3 of Gardenburger, Inc. of our report dated December 29,2004, except for Note 18, paragraphs 1 and 4, as to which the date is February 18,2005, with respect to the balance sheet of Gardenburger, Inc. as of September 30,2004, and the related statements of operations, shareholders’ deficit, and cashflows for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004, and the relatedfinancial statement schedule, which report appears in the September 30,2005 annual report on Form 10-K of Gardenburger, Inc.  Our report contains an explanatory paragraphregarding the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

 

 
| /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP   |   |
|------------------------|--------|
| Costa Mesa, California |
| December 16, 2005 |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2991 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2991

To disapprove of a certain sentencing guideline amendment submitted by 
    the United States Sentencing Commission, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 21, 2011

Mr. Culberson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To disapprove of a certain sentencing guideline amendment submitted by 
    the United States Sentencing Commission, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Illegal Immigration Sentencing 
Uniformity Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. DISAPPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2L1.2 OF THE FEDERAL 
              SENTENCING GUIDELINES.

    Amendment 6 of the ``Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, 
Policy Statements, and Official Commentary'', submitted to Congress by 
the United States Sentencing Commission on April 6, 2011 (amending 
section 2L1.2 and the Commentary to 2L1.2, of the Federal Sentencing 
Guidelines), is disapproved and may not take effect.
                                 <all>
```
### NUM BER 1 3-10 -000 27-CV 

## C O U R T O F AP P E AL S
T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS
C O R P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ LUA NA G RUETZM A CHER A ND CURTIS GRUETZM A CHER, A ppell ants,

v. DUKE E NERGY FIELD SERVI CES, L. P. , NOW KNOWN A S DCP M IDSTREA M , L.P. , A ppell ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ On a ppeal fr om the 135t h Di str ic t Cour t of G oli ad County , Texas.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

## M E M O R AN D U M O P I N I O N
Before J usti ces Rodriguez , Gar za , and Benavides M emor andum O pini on Per Cur ia m App ellant s, Lua na Gruet z ma cher and Curtis Gruet z ma cher, atte mp ted to perf ect an app eal f rom a judgme nt ent ered by the 135 th District Court of Gol ia d Co unt y , T exas, in

cause num ber 07-1 -914 5-CV. Judgm ent in this cause w as signed on Sep tem ber 21, 200 9.
A mo tion to recon sider w as f iled on Octob er 19, 200 9. Purs uan t to T exas Rule ofApp ellate Proce dure 26. 1, app ellant ’s not ice of app eal w as due on Decem ber 21, 200 9,

but w as n ot f iled u ntil Jan uary 18, 201 0.
A mo tion f o r e xt e nsion of time is nece ssarily imp lied w hen an app ellant , acting in good f aith, f ile s a n o t ic e of app eal beyond the time allowed by rule 26. 1, but w ithin the f if tee n-da y gr ace period provided by Rule 26. 3 f or f iling a mo tion f or extension of time

. See
Verbu rgt v. Dorner

, 95 9 S .W .2d 61 5, 6 17-1 8, 6 19 (199 7) (const ruing the pred ecesso r to Rule 26). How ever, app ellant must provi de a reason able ex plan ation for the late f iling: it is not eno ugh to simp ly f ile a not ice of app eal. Id. ; W ood ard v. Higgins , 140 S.W .3d 462 , 462 (Te x

. App .–A ma rill o 200 4, no pet .); In re B.G. , 104 S.W .3d 565 , 567 (Te x

. App .–W aco 200 2, n o p et.). On Februa ry 1, 201 0, the Clerk of this Court not if ied app ellant s of this def ect so tha t

s t e p s c o u ld be take n to correct the def ect, if it could be don e. App ellant s w ere ad vis e d tha t, if the def ect w as not corrected w ithin ten days f rom the dat e of receipt of this Court’s
lette r, the app eal w ould be dism issed

. T o d a te, no respo nse has bee n received f rom app ellant s providing a reaso nab le explanat ion f or the lat e f iling of the not ice of app eal. App ellee has f iled a m otion to dism iss f or w ant of jurisdiction

. T he Court, having examine d and f ully consid ered the docu me nts on f ile, app ellant s’ f ailure to time ly perf ect the app eal, and app ellant s’ f ailure to respo nd to this Court’s not ice, is of the opin ion tha t the app eal shou ld be dism issed f or w ant of jurisdiction. Accordin gly , app ellee’s mo tion to dis m is s is GRANT ED and the app eal is here by DISMISSE D FOR
W ANT OF JURISDICT ION. See T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 4 2.3 (a)(c).

PER CURIAM
Deliv ered an d f iled th e 4th da y of March, 2 010

. 2
----

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the      Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      L. Paul Latham                                      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| L.      Paul Latham                                          |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer                   |
| of      Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                       |
| Managing      General Partner of                             |
| Southwest      Royalties Institutional Income Fund X-B, L.P. |
|                                                         |
| March      27, 2009                                          |
|                                                         |
|                                                         |
| /s/      Mel G. Riggs                                        |
| Mel      G. Riggs                                            |
| Vice      President and Chief Financial Officer of           |
| Southwest      Royalties, Inc., the                          |
| Managing      General Partner of                             |
| Southwest      Royalties Institutional Income Fund X-B, L.P. |
|                                                         |
| March      27, 2009                                          |
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 22, 2019 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00370-CV 

ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-SEVEN DOLLARS AND FORTY-ONE 

CENTS (1,167.41), ET AL., Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-05623 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Whitehill, and Justice Molberg 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated July 10, 2019, we notified 

appellant the time for filing her brief had expired. We directed appellant to file a brief and an 

extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to file a brief and an 

extension motion would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, 

appellant has not filed her brief nor has she corresponded with the Court regarding the status of 

this appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c). 

190370F.P05 

/Robert D. Burns, III/ 

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED 

SIXTY-SEVEN DOLLARS AND FORTYONE CENTS (1,167.41), ET AL., 

Appellant 

No. 05-19-00370-CV V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-05623. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns, 

Justices Whitehill and Molberg 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee the State of Texas recover its costs, if any, of this appeal 

from appellant Tabrina Manning. 

Judgment entered August 22, 2019
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-145499 and No. 333-134989 on Form S-8 of our reports dated
December 11, 2007 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Haynes International, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding
the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R),Share-Based Paymentin 2006 and Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 158,Employers' Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plansin 2007) and management's report on the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Haynes International, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2007.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Indianapolis,
Indiana
December 11, 2007

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Carrollton Bancorp's Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      20,391,197
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               700,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 69,961,952
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      16,315,816
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        16,537,179
<LOANS>                                    151,994,152
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,241,148
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             267,157,160
<DEPOSITS>                                 225,785,080
<SHORT-TERM>                                11,943,221
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,358,409
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    13,947,580
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,122,870
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             267,157,160
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             12,898,277
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            5,508,443
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               112,185
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            18,518,905
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           8,107,927
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           8,548,742
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        9,970,163
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  187,500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              56,904
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             10,818,341
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,784,463
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,784,463
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,028,423
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.45
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.36
<LOANS-NON>                                     84,312
<LOANS-PAST>                                    62,988
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               812,072
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,243,472
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  271,563
<RECOVERIES>                                    81,739
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,241,148
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,661,275
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        579,873
        

</TABLE>