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





I,
      Anthony Collura, Chief Financial Officer certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Dispatch Auto Parts,
      Inc.





2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the 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 annual report;





3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this annual 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 annual report;





4.
      The
      registrant's other certifying officers and I am responsible for establishing
      and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-15(c) and 15d-(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 consolidates 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 period 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
      registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
      functions):





a)
      all
      significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
      could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
      and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors
      any
      material weaknesses in internal controls (all of which do not apply);
      and





b)
      any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls, (all of which
      do
      not apply); and





Date:
      August 23, 2006





/s/
      Anthony Collura


Anthony
      Collura
EX-35 (c)
OMAC 2006-1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

Cenlar FSB

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Cenlar FSB, as servicer (the
"Servicer") pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby certify
that:

1. A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from and including
January 1, 2006 through and including December 31, 2006 and of the Servicer's
performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my
supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all
material respects throughout such period. [If any material failure,specify such
failure and its nature and status.]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 28th
day of February 2007.


By: /s/ Jeanne M. Bader
Name: Jeanne M. Bader
Title: Senior Vice President
Director of Loan Administration
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Janice Lynn RATLIFF, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-7018.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 20, 2011.

Linda A. Epperley, Paul G. Hess, Douglas A. Horn, Cheryl R. Triplett, Office of the United States Attorney, Muskogee, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Janice Lynn Ratliff, Bryan, TX, pro se.

Before LUCERO, EBEL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

NEIL M. GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.

Janice Ratliff pleaded guilty to bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and was sentenced to sixty months in prison. Ms. Ratliff first sought to challenge her sentence on direct appeal but lost. *See United States v. Ratliff,*376 Fed.Appx. 830 (10th Cir.2010) (per curiam). Then she filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 alleging that her sentence should be vacated because it was the product of constitutionally deficient work by her lawyer. Ultimately, however, the district court concluded that Ms. Ratliffs ineffective assistance claims lacked merit. Ms. Ratliff now seeks from us a certificate of appeal-ability (“COA”) to challenge the district court’s disposition. She argues that, but for counsel’s allegedly deficient conduct, she would have received a downward adjustment to her sentence.

We may issue a COA only if the petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Under this standard, an applicant must show “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” *United States v. Taylor,*454 F.3d 1075, 1078 (10th Cir.2006) (citation omitted). Because Ms. Ratliff proceeds in this court *pro se,*we review her pleadings with special solicitude.

We do not, however, believe a COA is warranted in this case. In a lengthy opinion the district court applied *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), to Ms. Ratliffs claims and concluded, among other things, that she had failed to show either deficient performance by her attorney or prejudice resulting from her attorney’s performance. It is this court’s view that no reasonable jurist could doubt the correctness of the district court’s analysis of and rulings on those issues. The application for a COA is denied and this appeal is dismissed.

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
EXHIBIT 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Embraer S.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016,
as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, José Antonio de Almeida Filippo, Executive Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: March 21, 2017



|       |  |                                                       
|------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/ José Antonio de Almeida Filippo                   
|Name:  |  | José Antonio de Almeida Filippo                       
|Title: |  | Executive Vice  President and Chief
Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the company and will be retained by the company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Kyle JIGGETTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES and New York City Department of Transportation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-4005-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 23, 2011.

Kyle Jiggetts, Bronx, NY, pro se.

Matthew D. Crawford, Martenson, Has-brouck & Simon LLP, Atlanta, GA, for appellee AlliedBarton Security Services.

Larry A. Sonnenshein, Assistant Corporation Counsel (Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, on the brief), City of New York, New York, NY, for appellee New York City Department of Transportation.

PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, CHESTER J. STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Kyle Jiggetts, *pro se,*appeals from a judgment adopting the Magistrate Judge’s order denying Jig-getts’s motion to compel discovery and granting summary judgment to defendants, AlliedBarton Security Services and New York City Department of Transportation, and dismissing Jiggetts’s discrimination, retaliation, and breach of contract claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e *et seq.*(“Title VII”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112*et seq. (“ADA*”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.

We review *de novo*a district court’s grant of summary judgnent, drawing all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party. *Paneccasio v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc.,*532 F.3d 101, 107 (2d Cir.2008). “Summary judgment is appropriate only ‘if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” *Sousa v. Roque,*578 F.3d 164, 169 (2d Cir.2009) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56). Discovery rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. *See In re “Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig.,*517 F.3d 76, 102 (2d Cir.2008); *see generally Sims v. Blot,*534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir.2008) (“A district court has abuse[d] its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or rendered a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” (quotation marks and citations omitted)).

*25Having conducted an independent and *de novo*review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the judgment of the District Court for substantially the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge in his thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation, which the District Court adopted *in toto.*Further, Jiggetts’s challenge to the order of the Magistrate Judge denying Jiggetts’s motion to compel discovery fails; because the motion was premature, the Magistrate Judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Jiggetts’s other arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 15.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

Embraer S.A. 

 

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-204470) on Form F-3 of Embraer S.A. and Embraer Netherlands Finance B.V. and in the registration statement (No. 333-195376) on Form F-3 of Embraer S.A. and EmbraerOverseas Limited of our report dated March 28, 2016, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial position of Embraer S.A. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated statements of income,comprehensive income, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2015, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015, which report appearsin the December 31, 2015 annual report on Form 20-F of Embraer S.A. 

/s/ KPMG Auditores Independentes 

São José dos Campos, Brazil 

March 28, 2016
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2788 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the cap on full-time 

employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs who provide equal 

employment opportunity counseling. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 22, 2021 

Mr. LAMB (for himself and Mr. MANN) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the 

cap on full-time employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs who provide equal employment opportunity 

counseling. 

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 ‘‘VA Equal Employment 

5 Opportunity Counselor Modernization Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2788 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF CAP ON FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES 

2 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AF3 FAIRS WHO PROVIDE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

4 OPPORTUNITY COUNSELING. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 516 of title 38, United 

6 States Code, is amended— 

7 (1) by striking subsection (g); and 

8 (2) by redesignating subsection (h) as sub9 section (g). 

10 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 60 days after the date 

11 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans 

12 Affairs shall submit to the Committees on Veterans’ Af13 fairs of the Senate and House of Representatives a report 

14 regarding the effect of the amendment under subsection 

15 (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 8.1

List of Subsidiaries of Embraer - Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica S.A.



|                                                      |  |                              
|----------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Name                                                  |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Embraer Aircraft Holding, Inc  EAH                   |  | Delaware, U.S.A.             
|Embraer Aircraft Customer Services, Inc.  EACS       |  | Florida, U.S.A.              
|Embraer Aircraft Maintenance Services, Inc.  EAMS    |  | Delaware, U.S.A.             
|Embraer Services, Inc.  ESI                          |  | Delaware, U.S.A.             
|Embraer Executive Jet Service, LLC                    |  | Delaware, U.S.A.             
|Embraer Training Services  ETS                       |  | Delaware, U.S.A.             
|Embraer CAE Training Services  ECTS                  |  | Delaware, U.S.A.             
|Indústria Aeronáutica Neiva Ltda.  Neiva             |  | Brazil                       
|ELEB  Equipamentos Ltda.                             |  | Brazil                       
|Embraer  Gavião Peixoto  GPX                        |  | Brazil                       
|Embraer Aviation Europe  EAE                         |  | France                       
|Embraer Aviation International  EAI                  |  | France                       
|Embraer Europe SARL                                   |  | France                       
|Embraer Australia Pty Ltd.  EAL                      |  | Australia                    
|Embraer Credit Ltd.  ECL                             |  | Delaware, U.S.A.             
|Embraer Representations, LLC  ERL                    |  | Delaware, U.S.A              
|Harbin Embraer Aircraft Industry Company, Ltd.  HEAI |  | China                        
|Embraer Spain Holding Co., SL  ESH                   |  | Spain                        
|ECC Investment Switzerland AG  SWIN                  |  | Switzerland                  
|ECC Insurance & Financial Company Ltd.                |  | Cayman Islands, BWI          
|Embraer Finance Ltd.  EFL                            |  | Cayman Islands, BWI          
|Embraer Merco S/A  EMS                               |  | Uruguay                      
|Embraer Overseas Limited                              |  | Cayman Islands, BWI          
|Air Holding SGPS, S.A.                                |  | Portugal                     
|OGMA  Ind. Aeronáutica de Portugal S.A.              |  | Portugal                     
|ECC Leasing Company Ltd.                              |  | Ireland                      
|Canal Investments LLC                                 |  | Delaware, U.S.A.             
|ECC do Brasil Cia de Seguros                          |  | Brazil                       
|Embraer Asia Pacific Pte-Limited  EAL                |  | Singapore
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"FMC Holds Closed Meeting on WCMTOA","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"DfEZtA4SEB\"><a href=\"\/fmc-holds-closed-meeting-on-wcmtoa\/\">FMC Holds Closed Meeting on WCMTOA<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/fmc-holds-closed-meeting-on-wcmtoa\/embed\/#?secret=DfEZtA4SEB\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMC Holds Closed Meeting on WCMTOA” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"DfEZtA4SEB\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
**Exhibit 10.1**

**AMENDMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

**THIS AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT**is made as of the 8th day of May, 2006.

**BETWEEN**:

(1)                                                                       **Ness Technologies, Inc.**a Delaware Corporationof  Ness Tower, Atidim, IsraelIsrael (the “**Company**”)

(2)                                                                       **Mr. Aharon Fogel**Israeli I.D. 10176485(the **“Executive”**)

WHEREAS, the Company andthe Executive have previously entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of August 1,1999 as amended on May 31, 2001 (the “Agreement”), setting forth the termsand conditions of the employment relationship of the Executive with theCompany;

WHEREAS, the Company andthe Executive desire to amend the provisions of the Agreement in the mannerhereinafter appearing;

**NOW, THEREFORE**, in consideration of thepremises, and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto hereby agree asfollows:

1.                                       Insection 2 of the Agreement (automatic extension of the term) the words “three (3) months”shall be replaced by the words: “twelve (12) months”.

2.                                       Insection 6 (b) (iv) of the Agreement (advance notice period) the words“six (6) months” shall be replaced by the words: “twelve (12) months”.

3.                                       Exceptas set forth in Sections 1 and 2 hereof, the terms, conditions and agreementsset forth in the Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed and shall continuein full force and effect.

**INWITNESS WHEREOF**, the parties have executed this agreement onthe date first above written.

**NessTechnologies, Inc.**
| DATE:  | May 8, 2006 |                              | BY:    | /s/ RAVIV ZOLLER |   |
|--------|------------------|-----------------------------------|--------|------------------|--------|
|   |             | Raviv Zoller                      |   |
|   |             | Title:  CEO & President  |   |
|   |             |                              |   |
|   | BY:              | /s/ YTZHAK EDELMAN                |   |
|   |             | Ytzhak Edelman                    |   |
|   |             | Title:  CFO & Deputy CEO |   |
|   |             |                              |   |
| DATE:  | May 8, 2006 |                              |   | /s/ AHARON FOGEL |   |
|   |             | Aharon Fogel                      |   |

 

----
#### Patricia A. McCOLM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RESTORATION GROUP INC., a California Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-16826.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2008.*

Filed May 15, 2008.

Patricia A. McColm, San Francisco, CA, pro se.

Mark D. Norcross, Esq., Moss & Enoehian, Redding, CA, Philip S. Ward, Esq., Hassard & Bonnington, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

*761Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

A review of the record and the response to this court’s February 21, 2008 order to show cause indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). It does not appear that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint without leave to amend. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); *Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co.,*806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir.1986). Appellant’s other arguments on appeal are unavailing.

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.