alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
I, Victor H.M. Ting, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Trio-Tech International, a Californiacorporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Dated: May 13, 2005              /s/ VICTOR H.M. TING   Victor H.M. Ting,   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
**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 Omphalos, Corp. (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned officer
      of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to such officer’s knowledge that:





(i)  the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
      September 30, 2008 (the “ Report ”)
      fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (subject to the Company's
      position prevailing in regard to the remaining unresolved SEC comment, as more
      fully described in the Report); and





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





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.




November
                12, 2008
            /s/*Chu
                Pi Yun*Chu
                Pi YunChief
                Financial Officer
§ 19.5 Manufacturing products unfit for beverage use. ( a ) *General.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, apothecaries, pharmacists, or manufacturers who manufacture or compound any of the following products using tax paid or tax determined distilled spirits are not required to register and qualify as a distilled spirits plant (processor): ( 1 ) Medicines, medicinal preparations, food products, flavors, flavoring extracts, and perfume, conforming to the standards for approval of nonbeverage drawback products found in §§ 17.131 through 17.137 of this chapter, whether or not drawback is actually claimed on those products. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a formula does not need to be submitted if drawback is not desired;
( 2 ) Patented and proprietary medicines that are unfit for use for beverage purposes;
( 3 ) Toilet, medicinal, and antiseptic preparations and solutions that are unfit for use for beverage purposes;
( 4 ) Laboratory reagents, stains, and dyes that are unfit for use for beverage purposes; and
( 5 ) Flavoring extracts, syrups, and concentrates that are unfit for use for beverage purposes.
( b ) *Exception for beverage products.* Products identified in part 17 of this chapter as being fit for beverage use are alcoholic beverages. Bitters, patent medicines, and similar alcoholic preparations that are fit for beverage purposes, although held out as having certain medicinal properties, are also alcoholic beverages. These products are subject to the provisions of this part and must be manufactured on the bonded premises of a distilled spirits plant.
( c ) *Submission of formulas and samples.* When requested by the appropriate TTB officer or when the manufacturer wishes to ascertain whether a product is unfit for beverage use, the manufacturer will submit the formula and a sample of the product to the appropriate TTB officer for examination. TTB will determine whether the product is unfit for beverage use and whether manufacture of the product is exempt from qualification requirements.
( d ) *Change of formula.* If TTB finds that a product manufactured under paragraph (a) of this section is being used for beverage purposes, or for mixing with beverage spirits other than by a processor, TTB will notify the manufacturer to stop manufacturing the product until the formula is changed to make the product unfit for beverage use and the change is approved by the appropriate TTB officer. However, the provisions of this paragraph will not prohibit products which are unfit for beverage use from use in small quantities for flavoring drinks at the time of serving for immediate consumption.
(26 U.S.C. 5002, 5171)
#### § 6.72 “Tie-in” sales.

The act by an industry member of requiring that a retailer purchase one product (as defined in § 6.11) in order to obtain another constitutes a means to induce within the meaning of the Act. This includes the requirement to take a minimum quantity of a product in standard packaging in order to obtain the same product in some type of premium package, i.e., a distinctive decanter, or wooden or tin box. This also includes combination sales if one or more products may be purchased only in combination with other products and not individually. However, an industry member is not precluded from selling two or more kinds or brands of products to a retailer at a special combination price, provided the retailer has the option of purchasing either product at the usual price, and the retailer is not required to purchase any product it does not want. See § 6.93 for combination packaging of products plus non-alcoholic items.

[T.D. ATF-364, 60 FR 20422, Apr. 26, 1995]
### §6847. Civil rights

Nothing in this part shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with any Federal law guaranteeing a civil right.

(Pub. L. 89–10, title III, §3126, formerly §3127, as added Pub. L. 107–110, title III, §301, Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 1705; renumbered §3126, Pub. L. 114–95, title III, §3001(2)(B), Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 1953.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 6847, Pub. L. 89–10, title III, §3137, as added Pub. L. 103–382, title I, §101, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3649, related to Federal administration of programs, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 107–110.

A prior section 3126 of Pub. L. 89–10 was renumbered section 3125 and is classified to section 6846 of this title.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

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 Trio-Tech International (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer and Vice-President of
the Company, 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) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
and     
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

Dated: February 6,2003

/s/ VICTOR H.M. TING
Victor H.M. Ting
Chief Financial Officer and Vice-President
(Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14 OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Susan Weisman, certify that:

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Coach Industries Group, Inc.;

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;

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;

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) 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 (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; and

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 auditor 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.

Dated: March 16, 2006



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Susan Weisman                         
|Susan Weisman,                            
|Principal Accounting and Financial Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 1,901.35

 1,901.40

 1,901.80

 1,901.10

 1,900.98

 1,901.32

 1,900.53

 1,900.94

 1,901.35

 1,900.47

 1,901.29

 1,901.64

 1,900.83

 1,901.54

 1,900.79

 1,901.45

 1,900.68

 1,900.80

 1,901.40

 1,901.68

 1,901.73

 1,901.30

 1,901.48

 1,901.68

 1,901.44

 1,901.12

 1,901.08

 1,901.37

 1,901.71

 1,901.81

 14,173

 14,210

 14,509

 13,986

 13,896

 14,150

 13,565

 13,867

 14,173

 13,521

 14,128

 14,390

 13,786

 14,315

 13,756

 14,248

 13,675

 13,764

 14,210

 14,420

 14,457

 14,135

 14,270

 14,420

 14,240

 14,001

 13,971

 14,188

 14,442

 14,517

STORAGE

+394

+37

+299

-523

-90

+254

-585

+302

+306

-652

+607

+262

-604

+529

-559

+492

-573

+89

+446

+210

+37

-322

+135

+150

-180

-239

-30

+217

+254

+75

CHANGE

500

319

452

38

257

429

7

453

456

-28

607

433

-5

568

18

548

12

346

526

777

1,958

1,623

2,029

2,028

1,461

180

285

1,484

1,528

1,239

INFLOW

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 23

 80

 80

 80

 43

 80

 70

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 37

 0

 10

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 277

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

 220

OUTLETS

 1

 0

 1

 2

 2

 1

 2

 1

 2

 1

 1

 1

 0

 1

 0

 0

 1

 1

 1

 0

 1

 0

 1

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 0

C.F.S.

 .04

 .00

 .05

 .07

 .07

 .04

 .07

 .05

 .10

 .03

 .05

 .04

 .00

 .03

 .01

 .01

 .06

 .03

 .03

 .01

 .03

 .00

 .03

 .02

 .01

 .02

 .02

 .00

 .04

 .00

INCHES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

NOVEMBER 2000 LEWISTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: December 14, 2000

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

C.F.S. FRANCIS CARR

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +738 20,528 2,296 6,657 47 22 .96

ACRE-FEET +738 40,717 4,554 13,204 93 44

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

(1) OUTLET RELEASE INCLUDES THE CONTINUOUS FISH RELEASE OF 75 C.F.S.

(2) INCHES OF EVAPORATION TAKEN FROM PAN AT TRINITY RIVER HATCHERY

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL POWER 4,554

TOTAL RIVER 17,851 39,933

 13,779

 22,082

RIVER

JUDGE FRANCIS CARR POWERPLANT

TOTAL RELEASE

JUDGE (2)

(1) POWERPLANT

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 371

 1,638

 1,485

 1,660

 1,652

 1,252

 0

 0

 1,075

 1,099

 901

 11,133

 22,082

Table 6
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          29,180
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,180
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,783,313
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          848,513
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     934,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,783,313
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,395
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               153,585
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 892
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (142,082)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (142,082)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (142,082)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (12)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7752

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CALVIN RICO ROSEMOND,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (6:02-cr-00435-HMH; 6:06-cv-02741-HMH)

Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 5, 2007 

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Rico Rosemond, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra Pendleton,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Rico Rosemond seeks to appeal the district court’s

order treating his “Request to Reopen Judgment” as a Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b) motion and dismissing it as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.

2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rosemond has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Rosemond’s

motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Rosemond’s notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims
- 3 -

based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000). Rosemond’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255

motion. 

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
(No. 7046

#### George D. Karcazes, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Attorney General’s Office, Respondent.

*Opinion filed March 8, 1973.*

George D. Karcazes, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
(No. 73-CC-172

#### New Era Dairy, Division of Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Corrections, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 27, 1973.*

Twomey and Hines, Attorney for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Douglas G. Olson, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7295
WILBERT LOUIS DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LLOYD WATERS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-2428-AW) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 21, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wilbert Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Wilbert Davis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Davis v. Waters , No. CA-02-2428-AW (D. Md. filed Aug. 6, 2002; entered Aug. 7, 2002). 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