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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, J. Darby Seré, certify that

1. I have reviewed this annual report of GeoMet, 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)) 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 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 controls over financial reporting which are reasonably like 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 20, 2007



|   |  |                                       
|-- |  | --------------------------------------
|By |  | /s/    J. DARBY
SERÉ                  
|   |  | J. Darby Seré, Chief Executive Officer
|    |                                                                                                                                          |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Pillarstone Capital REIT (the “Registrant”); and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
| Date:  | April 3, 2017 | By: |   | /s/ James C. Mastandrea |
|   |   |   |   | James C. Mastandrea |
|   |   |   |   | Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President |
|   |   |   |   | (Chief Executive Officer) |
---



##### 



Fiscal Year
    
    Capital Expenditure2005
    
    $
    12,000,0002006
    
    $
    33,000,0002007
    
    $
    40,000,0002008
    
    $
    40,000,0002009 and thereafter
    
    $
    12,000,000
      2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



4




---



##### 



MAPCO EXPRESS, INC.By:
    /s/ Ed MorganName:
    Ed MorganTitle:
    CFOBy:
    /s/ John Colling, Jr.Name:
    John Colling, Jr.Title:
    Treasurer   5




---



##### 



LEHMAN COMMERCIAL PAPER INC., asAdministrative AgentBy:
    /s/ Ritam BhallaName:
    Ritam BhallaTitle:
    Authorized Signatory




---



##### 



FOURTH AMENDMENT




---



##### 



Fourth
Amendment Credit Agreement Borrower Lenders Arranger Syndication Agent Co-Administrative Agent Administrative Agent Guarantee and Collateral Agreement Grantors




---



##### 



WILLIAMSON OIL CO., INC.By:
    /s/ Edward MorganTitle:
    CFOBy:
    /s/ John P. Colling Jr.Title:
    Treasurer




---



##### 



DELEK US HOLDINGS, INC.By:
    /s/ Edward MorganTitle:
    CFOBy:Title:
    V.P.MAPCO EXPRESS, INC.By:
    /s/  Edward MorganTitle:
    CFOBy:
    /s/ John P. Colling Jr.Title:
    TreasurerGASOLINE ASSOCIATED SERVICES, INC.By:
    /s/  Edward MorganTitle:
    CFOBy:
    /s/ John P. Colling Jr.Title:
    TreasurerLIBERTY WHOLESALE CO., INC.By:
    /s/ Edward MorganTitle:
    CFOBy:
    /s/ John P. Colling Jr.Title:
    Treasurer




---



##### 



FOURTH AMENDMENT
  
 To:
    
    Lehman Commercial Paper Inc.,
as Administrative Agent
745 Seventh Avenue
Bank Loans 16th Floor
New York, New York 10019
Attn: Diane Albanese
  Credit Agreement Borrower Lenders Arranger Syndication Agent Co-Administrative Agent Administrative Agent
 , Fourth Amendment




---



##### 



Very truly yours,(NAME OF LENDER)By:Name:Title:




---



##### 



Accepted and agreed:
LEHMAN COMMERCIAL PAPER INC., 
as Administrative AgentBy:Name:Title:
    Authorized Signatory
NO. 07-07-0079-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL C

	MARCH 23, 2007

	______________________________

	 ERASMO GONZALES, 

									Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

									Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 69TH DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAM COUNTY;

	NO.  3320-8; HON. RON ENNS, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	Erasmo Gonzales, appellant, attempts to appeal from an order denying his “‘Petition for Redress of Grievance’” and his “‘Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc.’”  The court signed the order on December 4, 2006.  Appellant then filed a notice of appeal on March 5, 2007.  We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

	To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the day the trial court enters an appealable order or within 90 days after that date if a motion for new trial is filed.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a).  No motion for new trial having been filed,  appellant's notice of appeal was due to be filed January 3, 2007.  Because the record discloses that appellant’s notice of appeal was received by this court on March 5, 2007, without seeking an extension of the deadline, Tex. R. App. P. 26.3, the notice of appeal was late.

	A timely filed notice of appeal is essential to invoke our appellate jurisdiction.  Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).  If it is untimely, we can take no action other than to dismiss the proceeding.  Id. at 523.  Appellant's notice being untimely filed, we have no jurisdiction over the matter and dismiss the appeal.

	Accordingly, appellant’s appeal is dismissed.

							Brian Quinn 

						          Chief Justice 

Do not publish.
##### 



DELAWARE








I, HARRIET SMITH WINDSOR, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF
DELAWARE, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THE ATTACHED IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY
OF THE CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF FORWARD ACQUISITION
CORP., CHANGING ITS NAME FROM FORWARD ACQUISITION
CORP. TO DEX MEDIA, INC., FILED IN THIS OFFICE ON
THE THIRTY-FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, A.D. 2006, AT 7:31 OCLOCK A.M.

A FILED COPY OF THIS CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO THE NEW
CASTLE COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS.



| |                              
| | -----------------------------
| | /s/
    Harriet Smith Windsor

| |                                          
| | -----------------------------------------
| |                                          
| | Harriet Smith Windsor, Secretary of State
| | AUTHENTICATION: 4487370                  








---



##### 



State of
    Delaware
    Secretary of State
    Division of Corporations
    Delivered 07:25 AM 01/31/2006
    FILED 07:31 AM 01/31/2006
    SRV 060089180 - 4034452 FILE
  CERTIFICATE
    OF AMENDMENT
    TO THE
    CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
    OF
    FORWARD ACQUISITION CORP.
  Corporation DGCL
  FIRST
  First
  SECOND
  THIRD
  FOURTH
  [Signature
    page follows]




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
  Robert
    J. Bush
    -2-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7109

STEVE R. LUCAS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PARKER EVATT, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; RICKIE HARRISON, Warden,

Manning Correctional Institute; ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-94-3243-2-17AJ)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 11, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steve R. Lucas, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Lucas v.

Evatt, No. CA-94-3243-2-17AJ (D.S.C. June 29, 1995). 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.

DISMISSED
#### Gary Dean WALLACE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry W. JARVIS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-7188.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 14, 2011.

Decided: April 11, 2011.

Gary Dean Wallace, Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gary Dean Wallace seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find Wallace’s appeal is moot. While Wallace challenges the calculation of his release date, he has been released from custody, and he does not allege any collateral consequences that would warrant relief. *See Lane v. Williams,*455 U.S. 624, 631, 102 S.Ct. 1322, 71 L.Ed.2d 508 (1982) (habeas petitions were moot after prisoners’ sentences expired and prisoners had attacked only their sentences); *see also North Carolina v. Rice,*404 U.S. 244, 248, 92 S.Ct. 402, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971) (per curiam) (“Nullification of a conviction may have important benefits for a defendant ... but urging in a habeas corpus proceeding the correction of a sentence already served is another matter.”).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 in the deci-sional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### In the Matter of Jill Beyers, Respondent, v Earl Thrane, Appellant.

[665 NYS2d 944]

—In a proceeding pursuant to the Uniform Support of Dependents Law (Domestic Relations Law art 3-A), the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered November 19, 1996, which denied his objections to an order of the same *289court (Ekadis, H.E.), entered June 4, 1996, which, after a hearing, directed him to pay weekly child support in the sum of $67.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the hearing was in substantial compliance with the directives of Domestic Relations Law § 37 *(see, Matter of Adams-Eppes v Fulton,*195 AD2d 455; *Matter of Williams v Williams,*133 AD2d 876).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Santucei and Lerner, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3316 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3316

      To suspend temporarily the duty on 11-Aminoundecanoic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on 11-Aminoundecanoic acid.

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

SECTION 1. 11-AMINOUNDECANOIC ACID.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.32.49 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 11-Aminoundecanoic acid) is 
amended--
            (1) in the general rate of duty column, by striking 
        ``2.3%'' and inserting ``Free''; and
            (2) by striking the date in the effective period column and 
        inserting ``12/31/2012''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the date that is 15 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23.2



           NOTICE REGARDING OMISSION OF CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


The report of Arthur Andersen LLP dated February 27, 2002 relating to certain of
the financial statements that appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, is
incorporated by reference into our Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.
333-87715, 333-39129, 333-59859, 33-85272, 33-94972, 333-41954, 333-54010,
333-63156 and 333-100094) and our Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos.
333-86072 and 333-111527). Arthur Andersen LLP has not consented to the
incorporation by reference of their report on our financial statements into
those registration statements. We have dispensed with the requirement to file
their consent in reliance upon Rule 437a under the Securities Act of 1933.
Because Arthur Andersen LLP has not consented to the incorporation by reference
of their report into those registration statements, you will not be able to
recover against Arthur Andersen LLP under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended.

Section 11(a) provides that if any part of a registration statement, at the time
such registration statement becomes effective, contains any untrue statement of
a material fact or omits to state a material fact required to be stated therein
or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring
a security pursuant to such registration statement (unless such person knows of
such untruth or omission) may sue, among others, every accountant who has
consented to be named as having prepared or certified any part of the
registration statement, or as having prepared or certified any report or
valuation that is used in connection with the registration statement, with
respect to the statement in such registration statement, report or valuation
that purports to have been prepared or certified by the accountant.

Because we are unable to obtain Arthur Andersen's written consent to the
incorporation by reference of their report on such financial statements, Rule
437a permits us to file registration statements without that written consent.
Because it did not consent, Arthur Andersen does not become subject to liability
under Section 11(a), as discussed above. Consequently, stockholders would be
unable to sue Arthur Andersen under Section 11(a) in connection with the
purchase or sale of securities. However, other persons who are subject to
liability under Section 11, including the Company's officer and directors, may
still rely on Arthur Andersen's original audit reports as being made by an
expert for purposes of establishing a due diligence defense under Section 11(b)
of the Securities Act.
#### In re Morgan STANLEY, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp., Credit Suisse Holdings (USA), Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing LP, SWS Group, Inc., and Southwest Securities, Inc., Petitioners. In Re Bats Trading, Inc. (Also Known as Bats Exchange, Inc.), The Nasdaq Omx Group, Inc., Nasdaq Omx Phlx, Inc., International Securities Exchange, LLC, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Nyse Euronext, Nyse Arca, Inc., Nyse Amex, LLC, Securities Industry Automation Corporation, Options Price Reporting Authority, Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC, CME Group, Inc., Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc., and New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc., Petitioners. In re Thomson Reuters Corporation, Factset Research Systems Inc., Bloomberg L.P. and Interactive Data Corporation, Petitioners.

Misc. Nos. 962, 964, 967.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 11, 2011.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug. 11, 2011.*

Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Circuit Judge Gajarsa and Circuit Judge Dyk, did not participate in the vote. Circuit Judge Gajarsa assumed senior status on July 31, 2011.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of CME Group, Inc.’s motion for a stay of proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is denied.**

**

 With regard to the parties’ arguments regarding when this court’s mandate may issue, we note that this court does not issue mandates relating to petitions for writs of mandamus. Fed. Cir. R. 40(e).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           9,882
<SECURITIES>                                    23,153
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,120
<ALLOWANCES>                                       942
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,763
<PP&E>                                          52,910
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,120
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 111,397
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,755
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   111,397
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,372
<CGS>                                           11,525
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,468
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (541)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (12,548)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (12,548)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.35)


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40187

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Juan Doroteo Cantu-Saldivar, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:19-CR-2162-1

Before Graves, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Doroteo 

Cantu-Saldivar has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cantu-Saldivar has not filed a 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 25, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-40187 Document: 00515875147 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2021
No. 20-40187

2

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the 

appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, 

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 20-40187 Document: 00515875147 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2021