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

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Eyal Bigon, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report of InkSure Technologies, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
     a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
     statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
     were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
     report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) 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 is made known to us by others within those entities,
          particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

     (b)  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
          such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under
          our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
          reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
          statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
          accounting principles; and

     (c)  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;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board
     of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses 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: May 11, 2006


/s/ Eyal Bigon
--------------
Eyal Bigon
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Search For Plans Paying PBGC Premiums 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# Search for Plans Paying PBGC Premiums

See FAQs for tips about how to use this search feature.

Note that in very rare instances, an employer pays PBGC premiums in error even though their pension plan is not covered by PBGC. Paying PBGC premiums does not trigger coverage. See PBGC's coverage webpage for information.

                                -  20 
                                -  50 
                                -  100 

Search All (4479)Plans Paying PBGC Premiums (23866)Trusteed Plans (3875)

-  1 
-  2 
-  3 
-  4 
-  5 
-  6 
-  7 
-  8 
-  9 
-   ...  
-   Next  
-   Last  

##           Can't Find What You Are Looking For?      

Visit Our Search Tips page for help refining your search

Download a list of Single-Employer Plans Trusteed by PBGC [Excel]

**ESPAÑOL:**Como Buscar Una Pensión en la Barra de Búsqueda

View additional External Resources for Locating Benefits

##           Single-Employer Resources      

**EFAST2:** Search federal database of employee benefit plan information, including information on funding status.

Plans Paying PBGC Premiums FAQs

##           Multiemployer Resources      

Multiemployer Insurance Program Fact Sheet

Introduction to Multiemployer Plans

Multiemployer Benefit Guarantees

##           Download Lists of Plans Paying PBGC Premiums      

Single-Employer List

Multiemployer List
The State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 2, 20 14

N o. 04

- 14

- 00177

- CR

Alejandro Leal PENA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12

- 090168

- CRA Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant's brief, due September 10, 2014, has not been filed. This court notified appellant's counsel of the deficiency on September 15, 2014. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(b)(2). We have received no response.

Pursuant to rule 38.8(b)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we abate this case to the trial court and ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to answer the following questions:

(1) Does appellant desire to prosecute his appeal?

(2) Is appellant indigent? If appellant is indigent, the trial court shall take such measures as may be necessary to assure the effective assistance of counsel, which may include the appointment of new counsel.

(3) Has appointed or retained counsel abandoned the appeal? Because sanctions may be necessary, the trial court should address this issue even if new counsel is retained or substituted before the date of the hearing.

The trial court may, in its discretion, receive evidence on the first two questions by sworn

affidavit fr om the appellant. The trial court shall, however, order the appellant’s counsel to be present at the hearing.The trial court is further ORDERED to file supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records in this court, no later than October 31, 2014, which sha ll include: (1) a transcription of the hearing and copies of any documentary evidence admitted, (2) written findings of fact and conclusions of law, and (3) recommendations addressing the above enumerated questions.

_________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 2nd day of October, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001061688
<NAME> BECK & CO.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,422
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,651
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,073
<PP&E>                                          11,316
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,078
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,218
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,982
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,389
<SALES>                                         48,075
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,952
<CGS>                                           16,923
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   45,072
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 277
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,225)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (34,225)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (34,225)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2

                                  CERTIFICATION


18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002:


In connection with this quarterly report of iEntertainment Network, Inc. on Form
10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof, the undersigned, in the
capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to his knowledge:

1.   This report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Act of 1934: and

2.   The information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
     iEntertainment Network, Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in this
     report.


Date:  November 14, 2002
                                           /s/ Allan Kalbarczyk
                                           -------------------------
                                                Allan Kalbarczyk
                                            Chief Financial Officer



                                       26
### §8724. Protection of oil reserves; contracts for conservation

(a) To consolidate and protect the oil lands owned by the United States, the Secretary may—

(1) contract with owners and lessees of land inside or adjoining naval petroleum reserves for—

(A) conservation of oil and gas; and

(B) compensation for estimated drainage in lieu of drilling or operating offset wells; and

(2) acquire privately owned lands or leases inside Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1 by exchange of—

(A) lands of the United States inside Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1;

(B) the right to royalty production from any of the naval petroleum reserves; and

(C) the right to any money due the United States as a result of the wrongful extraction of petroleum products from lands inside Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1.

(b) The Secretary shall report annually to Congress all agreements under this section.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 458, §7424; Pub. L. 87–796, §1(4), Oct. 11, 1962, 76 Stat. 904; Pub. L. 94–258, title II, §201(5), Apr. 5, 1976, 90 Stat. 309; Pub. L. 96–513, title V, §513(32)(A), Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2933; renumbered §8724, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(d)(5), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1836.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7424 | 34 U.S.C. 524 (4th par., less 1st proviso). | June 4, 1920, ch. 228 (4th par., less 1st proviso, of amended 3d and 4th provisos), 41 Stat. 813; June 30, 1938, ch. 851, §1, 52 Stat. 1252; June 17, 1944, ch. 262, 58 Stat. 282. |

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 7424 of this title as this section.

1980—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 96–513 substituted "Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 1" for "naval petroleum reserve numbered 1" wherever appearing.

1976—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–258 struck out "of the Navy" after "Secretary", "and oil shale" after "petroleum" in par. (1), and "in the ground" after "conservation" in subpar. (A) of par. (1).

1962—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 87–796 inserted provisions in cl. (1) empowering the Secretary to contract with owners and lessees of land inside or adjoining oil shale reserves.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1980 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–513 effective Dec. 12, 1980, see section 701(b)(3) of Pub. L. 96–513, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.
# C_2006261EN.01001501.xml

| 28.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/15

---

Action brought on 7 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-367/06)

(2006/C 261/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3rd June 2003 (1) on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision, or in any event by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3rd June 2003 (1) on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision, or in any event by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive; and

1

| — | order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 23 September 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 235, 23.09.2003, p. 10 - 21

1

---
#### § 290.23 How does the Indian tribe resolve disputes arising from per capita payments to individual members or identified groups of members?

You must utilize or establish a tribal court system, forum or administrative process for resolving disputes arising from the allocation of net gaming revenue and the distribution of per capita payments.
Editorial Note on Part 23
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 23 appear at 79 FR 27190, May 13, 2014.

§ 23.118 How is a determination of “good cause” to deny transfer made? ( a ) If the State court believes, or any party asserts, that good cause to deny transfer exists, the reasons for that belief or assertion must be stated orally on the record or provided in writing on the record and to the parties to the child-custody proceeding.
( b ) Any party to the child-custody proceeding must have the opportunity to provide the court with views regarding whether good cause to deny transfer exists.
( c ) In determining whether good cause exists, the court must not consider: ( 1 ) Whether the foster-care or termination-of-parental-rights proceeding is at an advanced stage if the Indian child's parent, Indian custodian, or Tribe did not receive notice of the child-custody proceeding until an advanced stage;
( 2 ) Whether there have been prior proceedings involving the child for which no petition to transfer was filed;
( 3 ) Whether transfer could affect the placement of the child;
( 4 ) The Indian child's cultural connections with the Tribe or its reservation; or
( 5 ) Socioeconomic conditions or any negative perception of Tribal or BIA social services or judicial systems.
( d ) The basis for any State-court decision to deny transfer should be stated orally on the record or in a written order.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50726

Summary Calendar

MARTIN MORENO RUIZ

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

PATRICIO MARTINEZ, Chihuahua State Governor’s Office of the General

Justice of the State previous office of the Ministerial Public; JOSE REYES

BAEZA, Chihuahua State Governor’s Office of the General Justice of the State

previous Office of the Ministerial Public; POLICE DEPARTMENT ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF JUSTICE OF THE STATES OF CHIHUAHUA; PATRICIA

GONZALEZ RODRIGUEZ, Sub-Attorney General of Justice of the State of

Chihuahua; NORMA DOMINGUEZ RIVERA, Supervisors of the Ministerial

Public Police Department; ET AL

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CV-78

Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Martin Moreno Ruiz, alien detainee # A28-486-148, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his complaint against various elected officials and employees

of the City of Juarez and the State of Chihuahua, Mexico. Aside from

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 11, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-50726

2

conclusional allegations that his complaint was filed under the Alien Tort Claims

Act, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Charter,

and Article VI of the United States Constitution, Ruiz does not address the

district court’s determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his

claims and personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Ruiz’s attempt to

incorporate by reference the arguments set forth in his notice of appeal is an

insufficient means of raising those arguments in this court. See Yohey v. Collins,

985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, Ruiz has abandoned any

challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his complaint by failing to raise the

issues in his brief. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813

F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED. Ruiz’s motions for a temporary restraining order (stay of

deportation), a transfer or relocation to another facility, a picture of the district

court judge, and newspaper reports concerning the appellants are DENIED.
#### § 170.916 May Tribes impose taxes or fees on those performing TTP services?

Yes. Tribes, as sovereign nations, may impose taxes and fees for TTP activities. When a Tribe administers TTPs or projects under ISDEAA, its Tribal employment and contracting preference laws, including taxes and fees, apply.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

LA/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SYLVESTER JAMES MAHONE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

WASHINGTON STATE

REFORMATORY,

 Defendant,

 and

CAROL GRANDMONTAGNE,

Corrections Captain for the Washington

State Reformatory; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-35113

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00499-JLR

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

FILED

FEB 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

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

LA/Research 2 09-35113

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges,

Sylvester James Mahone, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from

the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v.

Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Mahone’s access

to courts claim because Mahone failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to

whether legal mail rules frustrated his ability to pursue a non-frivolous legal claim. 

See Lewis v. Casey, 578 U.S. 343, 352-53 (1996).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Mahone’s

retaliation claim because Mahone failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as

to whether the allegedly retaliatory conduct was unrelated to legitimate penological

goals. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).

Mahone’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-41137 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES FRANKLIN HEATER,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:98-CR-46-ALL

- - - - - - - - - -

June 15, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for James Franklin Heater, the

federal public defender (FPD), has filed a motion to withdraw as

counsel and a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738, 744 (1967). Heater has not filed a response to counsel’s

motion and brief. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and

the record on appeal discloses no nonfrivolous issues. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
MIDLAND CAPITAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION

                                  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

     In  connection  with the  quarterly  report  of  Midland  Capital  Holdings
Corporation  (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending December 31,
2003 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the  "Report"),  I Paul Zogas,  President  and Chief  Executive  and  Financial
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.




Date:  February 13, 2004    BY: /s/ Paul Zogas
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                Paul Zogas
                                President, Chief Executive and Financial Officer


                                       22