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

CERTIFICATION

I, Charles A. Menendez, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of DEFAULT PROOF
CREDIT CARD SYSTEM, INC.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 quarterly 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 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 annual 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 annual report based on such evaluation; and

c.	disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;

5.	The registrant's other certifying officers 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 registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a.	All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

b.	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date: March  28, 2005


    /s/ Charles A. Menendez,
    --------------------
        Charles A. Menendez,
        Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1 —    Section 1350 Certification**     I, Richard L. Wambold, certify that:      (1)     the    Form 10-Q    of Pactiv Corporation for the period ended September 30,    2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the    requirements of § 13(a) or § 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and      (2)     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all    material respects, the financial condition and results of    operations of Pactiv Corporation for the period then ended. /s/  RICHARD    L. WAMBOLD    Richard L. Wambold    Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer     Date: November 9, 2007     This certification accompanies this report pursuant to    Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall    not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of    2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of    Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as    amended. A signed original 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.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6348

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WARREN C. ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR-91-32-WMN, CA-97-991-WMN) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: September 2, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Warren C. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Raymond Allen Bonner, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. 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 his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Robinson , No. CR-91-32-WMN; CA-97-991-WMN (D. Md. Jan. 29, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 99



            Letter of Arthur Andersen Representation

To the Securities and Exchange Commission:

We represent that this audit was subject to our quality control
system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide
reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in
compliance with professional standards, that there was
appropriate continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working on
the audit and availability of national office consultation.
Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur
Andersen is not relevant to this audit.

Very truly yours,



/s/ David Fractor
__________________________________
David Fractor
Chief Financial Officer

Woodland Hills, California
March 27, 2002
73 A.3d 1260

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. John HART, Petitioner.

No. 106 EM 2013.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 6, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 6th day of September, 2013, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of BF Acquisition Group II,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, William Colucci, Treasurer 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:

         (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.

Dated: June 16, 2004

                               /s/ William Colucci
                              ------------------------------
                              William Colucci, Treasurer
                              BF Acquisition Group III, Inc.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 246 (Friday, December 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 65944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31445]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RP00-411-001, and RP01-44-003]


Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

December 17, 2001.
    Take notice that on December 10, 2001, Iroquois Gas Transmission 
System, L.P. (Iroquois) tendered its filing in compliance with the 
Commission's November 8, 2001 Order on Compliance Filing.
    Iroquois states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all 
firm customers, interruptible customers, state regulatory commissions 
and other interested parties.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may 
also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``RIMS'' 
link, select ``Docket#'' and follow the instructions (call 202-208-2222 
for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-31445 Filed 12-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### MYUNG HEE YANG, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-71354.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 20, 2008.*

Filed May 27, 2008.

Antonio Reyna Salazar, Salazar Law Offices, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Vanessa O. Lefort, Oil, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Myung Hee Yang, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision that she was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(D)(i). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003), and we grant the petition for review.

For determining inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(D)(i), prostitution is defined as “engaging in promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire.” 22 C.F.R. § 40.24(b); *see also Kepilino v. Gonzales,*454 F.3d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir.2006). The BIA therefore erred in concluding that Yang “engaged in prostitution” where the evidence relied upon by the BIA did not establish that Yang performed sexual intercourse for hire. *See Kepilino,*454 F.3d at 1061-62 (violation of state prostitution statute penalizing conduct other than sexual intercourse did not render alien inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(D)).

We remand to the BIA for reconsideration in light of *Kepilino.*As a result of our disposition, we need not reach Yang’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Bernard GEFFEN, Appellant, v. Henry WINER and Louis Winer, Appellees.

No. 13561.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued April 15, 1957.

Decided May 2, 1957.

*376Mr. Bernard Margolius, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Carleton U. Edwards, II, and Ralph H. Deckelbaum, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant. ' ' -

Mr. Richard W. Galiher, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. William E. Stewart, Jr., and Julian H. Reis, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for ap-pellees.

Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and FAHY and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

FAHY, Circuit Judge.

In the District Court appellant was awarded a jury verdict against appellees for injuries growing out of the collision between a motorcycle he was-riding and a truck which was owned by one of the appellees and operated by the other. Although the evidence was sufficient to support such an instruction the court denied appellant’s request for an instruction that should the jury find in his favor they should take into consideration, in determining the amount of damages, the reasonable value of the time he had lost from his employment.

Within the principles laid down by this Court in Hudson v. Lazarus, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 217 F.2d 344,1 the denial of the requested instruction was error which requires reversal, notwithstanding appellant was paid the amount, of his salary for the period he was unable to work.2

We have power in an appropriate case to remand only for redetermination of the amount of damages, excluding from the scope of a new trial the question of liability, see Washington Gas Light Co. v. Connolly, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 156, 214 F.2d 254, and cases there cited. But our power in this regard is-to be exercised with caution and not when the error which necessitates a new trial is in respect of a matter which might well have affected the jury’s determination of other issues. Cf. Thompson v. Camp, 6 Cir., 167 F.2d 733. Here it appears from the record as a whole that the interests of justice will be best served by a new trial on all issues. For this reason the judgment is

Reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

1

. See, also, Siebrand v. Gossnell, 9 Cir., 234 F.2d 81, 95; Shea v. Rettie, 287 Mass. 454, 192 N.E. 44, 95 A.L.R. 571; Motts v. Michigan Cab Co., 274 Mich. 437, 264 N.W. 855; Cooney v. Hughes, 310 Ill.App. 371, 34 N.E.2d 566.

2

. Appellant as a member of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, which continued his salary something more than 20 weeks until he returned to duty.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. George JACQUILLON v. J. Wayne ALLGOOD, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

Misc. No. 822.

United States District Court E. D. Louisiana, Baton Rouge Division.

July 27, 1965.

George Jacquillon, in pro. per.

Teddy W. Airhart, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, La., for respondents.

WEST, District Judge:

Petitioner, George C. Jacquillon, files this application for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that he was convicted *834of the crime of armed robbery and sentenced to serve twelve years at hard labor at Louisiana State Penitentiary, all without the benefit of counsel and contrary to law. An evidentiary hearing was held herein, at which hearing petitioner was present and testified. At this hearing respondents filed in the record all of the minutes of the State Trial Court pertaining to the petitioner’s arraignment and sentencing. While petitioner alleges that he was not accorded his constitutional right to representation by counsel, the record of the State Court proceedings had against him simply refute this contention. The minutes of the Seventeenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Terrebonne, Louisiana, wherein plaintiff, along with a co-defendant, was arraigned and sentenced, state as follows:

> “The accused were called and upon being interrogated by the Court as to whether or not they had obtained the services of an attorney in this matter, and, if they had not the funds so to do, whether it was their desire to have this Court appoint counsel in their behalf, replied that they were without counsel, but that they wished to decline the offer by the Court to appoint an attorney, without costs to the said accused, and were ready now to plead. Whereupon, upon being duly arraigned, the accused each pleaded guilty, and after having had their say, they were each sentenced to suffer imprisonment in the Louisiana State Penitentiary at hard labor for the term of twelve (12) years, subject to commutation and diminution of sentence for good behavior as provided by law.”

When petitioner appeared before this Court, he was unable to swear that this minute entry did not correctly re-fleet the facts surrounding his arraignment and sentence. There is no evidence to refute this record, and consequently, this Court cannot give credence to petitioner’s contention that he was not properly afforded the opportunity to be represented by counsel during the State Court proceedings had against him, and that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel.

Since, after refusing the assistance of counsel, defendant voluntarily pleaded guilty to the offense charged, there is, of course, no merit to his complaint now that he was not given a trial by jury. Also, there is no evidence to support his claim that he was subjected to an illegal arrest without a warrant. Therefore, petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Document

EXHIBIT 10.1
EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES USA, INC. 
401(k) AND MATCHING PLAN 
(Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2020)


THIS EIGHTH AMENDMENT is made and entered into by Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. (the “Company”):
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. 401(k) and Matching Plan (the “Plan”);
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Plan, the Benefit Plan Design Committee (the “Committee”) of the Company maintains the authority to amend the Plan at any time; and
WHEREAS, effective February 18, 2022 (the “Effective Date”), the Committee desires to amend the Plan to provide for full and immediate vesting in any employer-derived benefits accrued under the Plan for certain employees who are involuntarily terminated as a result of the reorganization of the Accounting Department and/or the relocation of the Buyer positions in the Supply Chain Department. 
NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as of the Effective Date as follows:
1.    Section 5.3(aa) is hereby added to the Plan as follows:
(aa)    Any provision of this Plan to the contrary notwithstanding, the amounts credited to the Employer Account of a Participant who is specifically designated by the Senior Vice President, Human Resources of the Company as being involuntarily terminated in connection with the reorganization of the Accounting Department and/or the relocation of the Buyer positions in the Supply Chain Department on or after February 17, 2022 shall become fully vested and nonforfeitable on the date of such involuntary termination. 
NOW, THEREFORE, be it further provided that except as provided above, the Plan shall continue to read in its current state.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this Eighth Amendment this 10th day of March 2022 to be effective as specified above.


                                                                        PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES USA, INC.




    By: /s/ Tyson L. Taylor
    Name: Tyson Taylor
    Title: Senior Vice President, Human Resources 
    1
US 8605434v.1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [NAFTA-5085]

                    Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment assistance, hereinafter called NAFTA-TAA and in accordance with section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2331), an investigation was initiated on July 13, 2001, in response                           ( print page 66432)                        to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Besser Lithibar, Holland, Michigan. Workers produce automated material handling equipment.                

A negative determination on an identical petition regarding the same worker group was issued on August 31, 2001. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC this 12th day of December, 2001.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01-31626  Filed 12-21-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
<PAGE>   1


                                                                Exhibit 23.1




                       Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 33-42261) pertaining to the Dividend Reinvestment and Stock
Purchase Plan of Second Bancorp, Inc. and in the related Prospectus and in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-42347) pertaining to the 1991 Incentive
Stock Option Plan of Second Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated January 24, 1996
with respect to the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) of Second Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
1995.


                                                Ernst & Young LLP


Cleveland, Ohio
March 25, 1996