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


Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








I, Joseph W. Baty, certify that:





1.      I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Schiff Nutrition International, Inc.;





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





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





4.      The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:





(a)      Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;





(b)      Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





(c)      Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5.      The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent 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: April 7, 2010
By:
/s/ Joseph W. BatyJoseph W. BatyChief Financial Officer
### §1670. Industrial development bonds

#### (a) Issuance

The legislature of the government of American Samoa may cause to be issued after September 20, 1984, industrial development bonds (within the meaning of section 103(b)(2) 1 of title 26).

#### (b) Exemption of all bonds from income taxation by State and local governments

#### (1) In general

The interest on any bond or other obligation issued by or on behalf of the Government of American Samoa shall be exempt from taxation by the Government of American Samoa and the governments of any of the several States, the District of Columbia, any territory or possession of the United States, and any subdivision thereof.

#### (2) Exemption applicable only to income taxes

The exemption provided by paragraph (1) shall not apply to gift, estate, inheritance, legacy, succession, or other wealth transfer taxes.

#### (c) Cross reference

For exclusion of interest for purposes of Federal income taxation, see section 103 of title 26.

(Pub. L. 98–454, title II, §202, Oct. 5, 1984, 98 Stat. 1733; Pub. L. 99–514, §2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095; Pub. L. 108–326, §1(a), Oct. 16, 2004, 118 Stat. 1270.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 103, referred to in subsec. (a), which related to interest on certain governmental obligations was amended generally by Pub. L. 99–514, title XIII, §1301(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2602, and as so amended relates to interest on State and local bonds. Section 103(b)(2), which prior to the general amendment defined industrial development bond, relates to the applicability of the interest exclusion to arbitrage bonds.

#### Amendments

2004—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 108–326 amended heading and text generally, substituting provisions relating to exemption of all bonds from income taxation by State and local governments for provisions relating to exemption from taxation and definition of State.

1986—Subsecs. (a), (c). Pub. L. 99–514 substituted "Internal Revenue Code of 1986" for "Internal Revenue Code of 1954", which for purposes of codification was translated as "title 26" thus requiring no change in text.

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

#### Effective Date of 2004 Amendment

Pub. L. 108–326, §2, Oct. 16, 2004, 118 Stat. 1270, provided that: "This Act [amending this section] shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 16, 2004]."

1 See References in Text note below.
### §873a. Repealed. June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §39, 62 Stat. 992

Section, act Feb. 12, 1940, ch. 25, §1, 54 Stat. 22, which related to rules governing civil cases. See section 2072 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Sept. 1, 1948, see section 38 of act June 25, 1948, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 1 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
AFS-11-337-E June 15, 2011

Exemption No. 10288 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0587

Ms. Karen Austin 6108 Maylane Drive Baltimore, MD 21212

Dear Ms. Austin:

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our decision and explains its basis.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 25, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of your 3 year old son for an exemption from § 121.311(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow your son, who is over two years old, to be held on the lap(s) of his family members rather than being in an individual seat with a seatbelt or in an approved child restraint device while traveling on an air carrier certificated under part 121 during all phases of flight.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to your son.

The FAA issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In dDenial of Exemption No. 6479 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that an exemption would not provide a level of safety that is equivalent to the regulations. The FAA also recognized that children are safer in an approved child restraint

device.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed denial of exemption. In addition, I have determined that the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed2

exemption also apply to the situation you present. I also find that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they don’t differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 6479;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 6479 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption wouldn’t be in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Adm inistrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny your petition for an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b).

Sincerely,

/s/

James Gardner Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service

Enclosure
### §13704. Household goods rates—estimates; guarantees of service

(a) In General.—

(1) Authority.—Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) of this subsection, a motor carrier providing transportation of household goods subject to jurisdiction under subchapter I of chapter 135 may establish a rate for the transportation of household goods which is based on the carrier's written, binding estimate of charges for providing such transportation.

(2) Nonpreferential; nonpredatory.—Any rate established under this subsection must be available on a nonpreferential basis to shippers and must not result in charges to shippers which are predatory.

(b) Rates for Guaranteed Service.—

(1) Authority.—Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2) of this subsection, a motor carrier providing transportation of household goods subject to jurisdiction under subchapter I of chapter 135 may establish rates for the transportation of household goods which guarantee that the carrier will pick up and deliver such household goods at the times specified in the contract for such services and provide a penalty or per diem payment in the event the carrier fails to pick up or deliver such household goods at the specified time. The charges, if any, for such guarantee and penalty provision may vary to reflect one or more options available to meet a particular shipper's needs.

(2) Authority of secretary to require nonguaranteed service rates.—Before a carrier may establish a rate for any service under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Secretary may require such carrier to have in effect and keep in effect, during any period such rate is in effect under paragraph (1), a rate for such service which does not guarantee the pick up and delivery of household goods at the times specified in the contract for such services and which does not provide a penalty or per diem payment in the event the carrier fails to pick up or deliver household goods at the specified time.

(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, §103, Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 872.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 10735 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, §102(a).

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.
### SUBCHAPTER III—REPORTS AND RECORDS
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  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Parks! America, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:  The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 27, 2009 (the Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    Dated: March 30, 2010   /s/ Tristan Pico Tristan Pico Chief Executive Officer Parks! America, Inc.   Dated: March 30, 2010    /s/ Jon Laria Jon Laria Chief Financial Officer Parks! America, Inc.   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Parks! America, Inc. and will be retained by Parks! America, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 1227.805 How may a State obtain a new delegation agreement after termination?

After your delegation agreement is terminated, you may apply again for delegation by beginning with the proposal process under this part.
#### George M. Dahlin, Appellant, v. Albert Alfredo, Respondent.

In an action by the owner of real property against the holder of a bond and mortgage purporting to have been executed by such owner, for a judgment: (a) declaring that the bond and mortgage are forgeries, that the mortgage is null and void and that it is not a valid and subsisting lien upon plaintiff’s property; and (b) directing defendant to deliver said bond and mortgage to plaintiff for cancellation; in which the defendant has counterclaimed for judgment declaring that the bond and mortgage are valid and that the mortgage is a subsisting lien upon plaintiff’s property, the plaintiff appeals: (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, rendered May 9, 1960 (and entered May 11, 1960), after a nonjury trial, dismissing his complaint and declaring that the mortgage is a valid and subsisting lien on his property and that its terms are sufficient to create the debt secured by it; and (2) from an order of said court, made the same day, denying plaintiff’s motion, pursuant to section 549 of the Civil Practice Act, to set aside the decision and for a new trial. The judgment and order are incorporated in one document. Judgment (as embraced in the second, third, fourth and fifth decretal paragraphs of the combined judgment and order) reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and judgment directed dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim and, as prayed for in the complaint: (1) declaring that the mortgage herein is null and void and not a valid or subsisting lien upon plaintiff’s real property described in the complaint; (2) directing defendant to deliver said bond and mortgage to the plaintiff for cancellation; (3) directing the County Clerk of Westchester County to cancel said mortgage of record; and (4) enjoining defendant from transferring, selling or assigning said bond and mortgage and from taking any action to foreclose said mortgage or to collect the amount purporting to be due under said bond and mortgage. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. Appeal from order (as embraced in the first decretal paragraph of the combined judgment and order) dismissed as academic. It was conceded and established upon the trial that the indorsement on the $6,000 check delivered by defendant on the security of the bond and mortgage, and the signature on the bond were forgeries of the plaintiff’s name. It was also proved that plaintiff never received any part of the $6,000 advanced by defendant, nor any other consideration from the defendant. It further appears that, while plaintiff did sign his name to the instrument purporting to be a mortgage on his real property, he never intended to sign a mortgage and that he was deceived into signing it. Plaintiff, therefore, established a prima facie ease (cf. *Marden*v. *Dorthy,*169 N. Y. 39); and, since *799defendant failed to offer any proof to rebut it, plaintiff is entitled to judgment in his favor. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS

DA RRE L LC. SC HR OD ER, Ap pe lla nt,
v.
JAME S & HAUG LAN D, P.C. F /K /A J AMES, GOL DMAN & HAUGLAND, P.C., Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 08 -0 00 86 -C V

Appea l from the County Court No. 3 of El Pa so County , T e xas (TC# 2006-2376)

M EM OR

AN DU MOP IN ION This appea l is before the Court on its own moti on for de termination whethe r the a ppeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Finding that Appellant did not timely file the notice of appe al, we dismiss the appe al for w ant of jurisdiction. A civil appea l is perfe cted whe n the notice of appea l is filed. T EX .R.A PP .P. 26.1; Restrepo v . First Nat ’l Bank of Dona Ana County, N.M. , 892 S.W .2d 237, 238 (Tex.App.-- El Paso 1995, no pet.)(a

pplying f ormer T EX .R.A PP .P. 40(a)( 1)). When no motion for new trial or reque st for finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law is filed, the notice of appe al must be filed within thirty

day s after

the judg ment is signed. T EX .R.A PP .P. 26 .1 ; Restrepo , 892 S.W .2d at 238. When a motion for new trial is tim ely filed, the notice of appe al is due within ninety day s after the judg ment is signed. SeeT EX .R.A PP .P. 26.1(a)( 1). An untimely notice of a

ppeal will be
c on sid e re d ti me ly

if it i s f ile d w ith in f

if te e n d ay s a ft e r t

he du e date and

inc lud e s a

re a so na ble explanation for the Appe llant’s failure to file on the due date. SeeT EX .R.A PP .P. 26 .3 ; Verburgt-2-

v. Dorne r , 959 S.W .2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Th e jud g me nt i n th is c a se wa s si gne d o n N ov e mbe r 1 9, 20 07 . App e lla nt f ile d a tim e ly motion for new tria l on Dece mber 19, 2007. Thus, the notice of appe al was due no later tha n Fe bruar y 17, 2008. Appellant did not file a notice of appe al until March 6, 2008. The ref ore, Ap pe lla nt’ s n oti c e of

a pp e a l w a s n ot t ime ly

fi le d. B y le tte r d ate d M arc h 7 , 2 00 8, the c le rk of thi s Court notified Appellant of our intent to dism iss the case for wa nt of jurisdiction beca

use the appea l had not been pe rfe cted. T EX .R.A PP .P. 42.3. Appellant has not responde d to the cler k’s notice. Ac cording ly , we dismiss the appea l for wa nt of jurisdiction.
May 15, 2008 DAVID WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d C ar r , JJ.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11446

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus

ANTONIO FRANCHESTER ORR, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-00247-RDP-NAD-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-11446 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 02/22/2024 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11446

Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Alison Wallace, appointed counsel for Antonio Orr in this 

direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire 

record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the 

appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire 

record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to 

withdraw is GRANTED, and Orr’s convictions and sentences are 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-11446 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 02/22/2024 Page: 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Carmen J. Lotito, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of Digital Ecosystems Corp. (the “Registrant” or the“Company”);  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on my most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: July 14, 2006            /s/ Carmen J. Lotito                    Carmen J. Lotito, Chief Financial Officer
#### § 15.3 Observers at tests and evaluation.

Only personnel of MSHA, designees of MSHA, representatives of the applicant, and such other persons as agreed upon by MSHA and the applicant shall be present during tests and evaluations conducted under this part.

[70 FR 46342, Aug. 9, 2005]
### §§1509 to 1512. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 1509 to 1512, relating to Territory of Hawaii, were omitted in view of the admission of Hawaii into the Union. Sections were formerly classified to sections 83 to 86 of Title 8, Aliens and Nationality.

Section 1509, acts Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, §73(f), 31 Stat. 154; May 27, 1910, ch. 258, §5, 36 Stat. 444; July 9, 1921, ch. 42, §304, 42 Stat. 117, set out requirements for aliens who would be entitled to receive any certificate of occupation, right of purchase lease, cash freehold agreement, or special homestead agreement in public lands in Hawaii. Section was also classified to section 667 of this title.

Section 1510, acts Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, §73(g), 31 Stat. 154; May 27, 1910, ch. 258, §5, 36 Stat. 444; July 9, 1921, ch. 42, §304, 42 Stat. 117, restricted conveyance or other transfer of public lands in Hawaii to aliens. Section was also classified to section 668 of this title.

Section 1511, acts Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 338, §73(j), 31 Stat. 154; May 27, 1910, ch. 258, §5, 36 Stat. 444; July 9, 1921, ch. 42, §306, 42 Stat. 118, gave commissioner, with approval of governor, the right to give preferences in purchasing of public lands. Section was also classified to section 671 of this title.

Section 1512, acts Apr. 30, 1900, ch. 339, §73(l), 31 Stat. 154; May 27, 1910, ch. 258, §5, 36 Stat. 444; July 9, 1921, ch. 42, §308, 42 Stat. 118, authorized sale of agricultural land in Hawaii for residential purposes to persons declaring intention to become citizens. Section was also classified to section 673 of this title.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket** Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 1417 Directorate Identifier: 2011NM159AD

AIR CRUISERS 777 107 - 25 - 30 --- 9/30/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Li nd Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008