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

CERTIFICATION

I,Lawrence Kong, certify that:

1. Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Bidz.com, Inc.;

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period 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 financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

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

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant is made known to us by others,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

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

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

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: August 14,  2006 |   |                     |
|------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                   |   |                     |
|                   |   | /s/ Lawrence  Kong       |   |
|                   |   | Lawrence Kong            |   |
|                   |   | Chief Financial  Officer |   |

 

1

----
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 ForgeHouse, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Christian Negri, President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The Report 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 result of operations of the Registrant.





Date:  August 20, 2010





/s/ Christian Negri


Christian Negri,


President, Secretary and Treasurer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG CASE NO. 3:19md2885

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

 Judge M. Casey Rodgers

This Document relates to All Cases Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

 

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge M. Casey Rodgers on May 20, 2019

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE 

Filed by Paul J. Pennock on May 20, 2019 Doc. # 366 

Response on Doc. # 

Stipulated Joint Pleading

 Unopposed Consented

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS

CLERK OF COURT

/s/Kathy Rock

Deputy Clerk: Kathy Rock

On consideration, the motion is GRANTED.

DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of May 2019.

 M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 368 Filed 05/20/19 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28906]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Project No. 12775-001]


City of Spearfish, SD; Notice of Availability of Final 
Environmental Assessment

November 8, 2010.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) 
regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 380 (Order No. 
486, 52 Federal Register (FR) 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has 
reviewed the city of Spearfish's application for license for the 
Spearfish Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 12775-001), located 
on Spearfish Creek near the city of Spearfish, in Lawrence County, 
South Dakota. The existing, but unlicensed project occupies a total of 
57.26 acres of federal lands within the Black Hills National Forest 
managed by the U.S. Forest Service.
    Staff prepared a final environmental assessment (EA), which 
analyzes the potential environmental effects of licensing the project, 
and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate 
environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal 
action that would significantly affect the quality of the human 
environment.
    A copy of the final EA is available for review at the Commission in 
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site 
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket 
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to 
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#387e7d6a7b77565451565d6b4d4848574a4c785e5d4a5b165f574e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="84c2c1d6c7cbeae8edeae1d7f1f4f4ebf6f0c4e2e1f6e7aae3ebf2">[email protected]</span></a> or toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, 
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances 
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC 
Online Support. For further information, contact Joseph Adamson by 
telephone at (202) 502-8085 or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#adc7c2dec8ddc583ccc9ccc0dec2c3edcbc8dfce83cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="62080d1107120a4c0306030f110d0c22040710014c050d14">[email protected]</span></a>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28906 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00253-CV

Combined Financial Holdings Trust, Appellant

v.

The County of Bastrop, Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY, 335TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 11,883, HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER DARROW DUGGAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Combined Financial Holdings Trust, through its Trustee William H.

Mikulin, filed its notice of appeal on April 24, 2015. On June 16, 2015, the Clerk of this Court sent

a letter notifying appellant that the clerk’s record was overdue and requesting that it make payment

arrangements for the clerk’s record and submit a status report regarding this appeal. The overduerecord notice also informed appellant that failure to make payment arrangements or respond to

the Court’s notice by June 26, 2015, could subject this appeal to dismissal for want of prosecution. 

To date, the clerk’s record in this cause has not been filed and the district clerk

has not received any payment. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).
__________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: July 10, 2015
###### Editorial Note on Part 1955

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1955 appear at 80 FR 9895, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1955.82 State supplements.

State supplements will be prepared with the assistance of OGC as necessary to comply with State laws or only as specifically authorized in this regulation to provide guidance to Rural Development officials. State supplements applicable to MFH must have prior approval of the National Office; others may receive post approval. Requests for approval for those affecting MFH must include complete justification, citations of State law, and an opinion from OGC.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             462
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   87,988
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,434
<PP&E>                                       6,230,987
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,012,363
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 594,967
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          149,777
<BONDS>                                        250,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,792,267
<COMMON>                                       627,413
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,247,143)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   594,967
<SALES>                                         62,915
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               126,271
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  366,197
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,655
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (271,581)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (271,581)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (271,581)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6638

MICHAEL T. BRAXTON,
Plaintiff

– Appellant,

v. JOETTE D. SCARBOROUGH, South Carolina Department of Corrections Central Class Director; A. BOYD; C. YORK; DONNIE STONEBREAKER; MS. HENDRIX; BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; MICHAEL STOBBE; LETTIE JACOBS; MRS./MS. BAKER; MRS./MS. PRICE; TERESA S. PLAYER; GEORGE M. DUCWORTH; GERALD BLACK; DON A. THOMPSON; MR S./MS. FREEMAN,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 8:22

- cv - 01106

- HMH )

Submitted : February 16, 2023 Decided: February 22, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING , Circuit Judge , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Michael T. Braxton , Appellant Pro Se. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6638 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6638 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM:
Michael T. Braxton appeals the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and fin d no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Braxton v. Scarborough, No. 8:22

- cv 01106

- HMH (D.S.C. May 17, 2022). In addition, we note that numerous claims are raised by Braxton for the first time on appeal . We decline to consider these claims. See Muth v.
United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that claims raised for the first time on appeal generally will not be considered, absent exceptional circumstances of plain error
or fundamental mi scarriage of justice); First Virginia Banks, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Oil,
Inc. , 206 F.3d 404, 407 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000) (declining to consider issues raised for first time on appeal). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions a re adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6638 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
#### § 1710.254 [Reserved]
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 7, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D16-2302

Lower Tribunal No. 13-27522

________________



### Olga Karapetyan and Vadim Karapetyan

,

Appellants,

vs.



### Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

, etc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice

Butchko

, Judge.

Pomeranz & Associates, P.A., and Mark L. Pomeranz (Hallandale)

, for

appellants.

Pearson Bitman LLP, and Allison Morat and Nicole D. McKee (Maitland)

, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, C.J., and EMAS and LOGUE, JJ.

LOGUE, J.This appeal arises from a residential foreclosure. The borrowers seek

review of the trial court’s order denying their amended objection to the foreclosure

sale.

The borrowers argue that the notice of the foreclosure sale did not comply

with section 45.031(2), Florida Statutes (2015), which provides:

Notice of sale shall be published once a week for 2 consecutive weeks

in a newspaper of general circulation, as defined in chapter 50,

published in the county where the sale is to be held. The second

publication shall be at least 5 days before the sale.

Here, there is no dispute that the notice of foreclosure sale was printed in the

Daily Business Review on Friday, April 15, 2016, and again on Friday, April 22,

2016. The sale took place on May 4, 2016, more than the required five days after

the April 22, 2016 date of the second publication.

Appellants suggest that because the first publication occurred on April 15,

2016, we must consider that to be the beginning of an initial one-week period

ending on April 21, 2016. The appellants further contend that the statute requires a

second one-week period which, in this case, is the period from April 22 through

April 29, 2016. They argue that this interpretation requires that the second

publication occur on April 29, 2016 because it is the final day of the second full

week. Under that methodology, the May 4, 2016 sale date falls short of the fiveday statutory requirement, once the intervening weekends are considered. We

reject this interpretation of the statute.

2Publication occurred once during the week of April 15, 2016, and once

again during the week of April 22, 2016, satisfying the “once a week for 2

consecutive weeks” requirement in the statute. Accordingly, we affirm the order

on appeal.

Affirmed.

3
Editorial Note on Part 1956
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1956 appear at 80 FR 9901, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1956.145 Disposition of essential Rural Development records. RD Instruction 2033-A (available in any Rural Development office) identifies an “essential Rural Development record” as the original of any document or record which provides evidence of indebtedness or obligation to RD and includes, but is not limited to: promissory notes, assumption agreements and valuable documents, such as bonds fully registered as to principal and interest. ( a ) Essential Rural Development records evidencing debts settled by compromise, completed adjustment or cancelled with application will be returned to the debtor or to the debtors' legal representative. The appropriate legend, such as “Satisfied by Approved Compromise,” and the date of the final action will be stamped or typed on the original document. This same information plus the date the original document is returned to the debtor will be shown on a copy to be placed in the debtor's case folder.
( b ) Essential Rural Development records evidencing debts cancelled without application will be placed in the debtor's case folder and disposed of pursuant to RD Instruction 2033-A (available in any Rural Development office). However, if the debtor requests the document(s), they must be stamped “Satisfied by Approved Cancellation” and returned.
( c ) Essential Rural Development records evidencing charged off debts will be retained in the servicing office and will not be stamped or returned to the debtor. They will be destroyed six years after chargeoff pursuant to RD Instruction 2033-A (available in any Rural Development office).
[80 FR 9902, Feb. 24, 2015]
---

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

I, Roger Liere, Chief Executive Officer of Vitavea Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company, for
      the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2007, and to which this certification
      is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                          

| | By:    | /s/
      Roger Liere                       
| | ------ | --------------------------------------------
| | Name:  | ROGER LIERE                                 
| |        |                                             
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
      and  President
| |       
| | Date:  | June
      19, 2007                         

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the
Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
#### Hay *vs.*McKinney.

Chafcery. Case 142.

October 8.

-*Decrpp rever m c” r tifíenteof0""1" publication. *442specie^lor amount due in Cooi’Ith’s neous?1S err°"

*441The decree is erroneous, in several particulars ***

1st. Mrs. Williams was not before the court by legal service. There is no proof that the publication against her was made according to law, the cer*442tificate not having been made by “ *the printer in whose paper"*the publication purports to have been made, but by the editor only.

2nd. section o' an act of 17 >6, 1 Digest, 59.

2nd. If any decree against Hay had been proper, it should not have been for *$172*in specie, as there was j,0 proof that he owed ¡VIrs. Williams that much, or ni01'e than that sum in Commonwealth’s paper.

3rd. No security was required of the complainant, according to the second section of an act of 1796, I Dig. 59.

Wherefore, without deciding whether the bill and exhibits present any equitable ground for relief for the surplus land, the decree is erroneous.

Decree reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1423.8 Approval or rejection. ( a ) CCC will notify warehouse operators approved under this part in writing. Such approval does not relieve the warehouse operator of any obligation under any agreement to CCC or any other agency of the United States, and does not obligate CCC to use the warehouse.
( b ) CCC will notify the warehouse operator of rejection under this part in writing. The notification will state the causes for rejection. CCC will reconsider a warehouse for approval when the warehouse operator establishes that the reasons for rejection have been remedied or requests reconsideration of the action and presents to the Director, Warehouse and Commodity Management Division, AMS, in writing, information in support of such request. The warehouse operator may, if dissatisfied with the Director's determination, obtain a review of the determination and an informal hearing by submitting a request with the AMS Administrator. Appeals shall be as prescribed in part 780 of this title.
[71 FR 35773, June 22, 2006, as amended at 71 FR 42017, July 25, 2006; 84 FR 29033, June 21, 2019]