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

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Jennifer L. Cue, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Jones Soda Co. 

 

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, inlight 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 financialcondition, 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 officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 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, ismade 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 theeffectiveness 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 mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

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

 

a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting 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 controlover financial reporting. 

 

Dated as of May 16, 2005.
§ 217.107 Renewals and modifications of Letters of Authorization. ( a ) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.106 for the activity identified in § 217.100(a) shall be renewed or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that: ( 1 ) The proposed specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as those described and analyzed for this subpart (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section); and
( 2 ) NMFS' Office of Protected Resources determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required by the previous LOA under this subpart were implemented.
( b ) For an LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant that include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this section) that do not change the findings made for this subpart or result in no more than a minor change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution by species or years), NMFS' Office of Protected Resources may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register, including the associated analysis of the change, and solicit public comment before issuing the LOA.
( c ) An LOA issued under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.106 for the activity identified in § 217.100(a) may be modified by NMFS' Office of Protected Resources under the following circumstances: ( 1 ) *Adaptive management.* NMFS' Office of Protected Resources may modify (including augment) the existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with UCSC/PISCO regarding the practicability of the modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring set forth in this subpart. ( i ) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA: ( A ) Results from UCSC/PISCO's monitoring from the previous year(s).
( B ) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or studies.
( C ) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent, or number not authorized by this subpart or subsequent LOAs.
( ii ) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS' Office of Protected Resources will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register and solicit public comment.
( 2 ) *Emergencies.* If NMFS' Office of Protected Resources determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of marine mammals specified in LOAs issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.106, an LOA may be modified without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. Notice would be published in the Federal Register within thirty days of the action.
No. 11-6158.

#### Holmes *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00295

- CR

Mohamed Ibrahim Daud

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 371st District Court

o f Tarrant County (1332770D )

July 2, 2015

P er C uriam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirme d.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

In re: 

Rashmi S Sinha

Debtor(s)

Case No. 16-26461

CHAPTER 13 STANDING TRUSTEE’S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT

Glenn Stearns, chapter 13 trustee, submits the following Final Report and Account of the 

administration of the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1302(b)(1). The trustee declares as follows:

1) The case was filed on 08/17/2016.

2) The plan was confirmed on NA .

3) The plan was modified by order after confirmation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1329 on

NA .

4) The trustee filed action to remedy default by the debtor in performance under the plan 

on NA .

5) The case was dismissed on 11/18/2016.

6) Number of months from filing to last payment: 3.

7) Number of months case was pending: 5.

8) Total value of assets abandoned by court order: NA .

9) Total value of assets exempted: NA .

10) Amount of unsecured claims discharged without payment: $0.00.

11) All checks distributed by the trustee relating to this case have cleared the bank.

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (9/1/2009)

Case 16-26461 Doc 34 Filed 01/23/17 Entered 01/23/17 14:43:16 Desc Page 1

 of 3
Receipts:

Total paid by or on behalf of the debtor $3,650.00

Less amount refunded to debtor $3,471.15

NET RECEIPTS: $178.85

Expenses of Administration:

Attorney’s Fees Paid Through the Plan $0.00

Court Costs $0.00

Trustee Expenses & Compensation $178.85

Other $0.00

TOTAL EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION: $178.85

Attorney fees paid and disclosed by debtor: $0.00

Scheduled Creditors:

Creditor

Name Class

Claim

Scheduled

Claim

Asserted

Claim

Allowed

Int.

Paid

Principal

Paid

Summary of Disbursements to Creditors:

Secured Payments:

Mortgage Ongoing

Mortgage Arrearage

Debt Secured by Vehicle

All Other Secured

TOTAL SECURED:

Priority Unsecured Payments:

Domestic Support Arrearage

Domestic Support Ongoing

All Other Priority

TOTAL PRIORITY:

GENERAL UNSECURED PAYMENTS:

Claim

Allowed

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

Principal

Paid

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

Interest

Paid

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (9/1/2009)

Case 16-26461 Doc 34 Filed 01/23/17 Entered 01/23/17 14:43:16 Desc Page 2

 of 3
Disbursements:

Expenses of Administration $178.85

Disbursements to Creditors $0.00

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS : $178.85

12) The trustee certifies that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5009, 

the estate has been fully administered, the foregoing summary is true and complete, and all 

administrative matters for which the trustee is responsible have been completed. The trustee 

requests a final decree be entered that discharges the trustee and grants such other relief as may 

be just and proper.

Dated: 01/23/2017

STATEMENT: This Unified Form is associated with an open bankruptcy case, therefore, Paperwork Reduction 

Act exemption 5 C.F.R. § 1320.4(a)(2) applies.

By:/s/ Glenn Stearns

Trustee

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (9/1/2009)

Case 16-26461 Doc 34 Filed 01/23/17 Entered 01/23/17 14:43:16 Desc Page 3

 of 3
No. 11-5924.

#### Aguiar *v.*United States.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan
July 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 131652 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr.

_____________ _______________ _____________ Stephen J. Markman, Justices IN RE LAURA ANN TACK, Minor.

_____________ _______________ _____________
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 131652 COA: 267852 Oakland CC

JUNE KOTEL, Respondent-Appellant, Family Division: 05-708384-NA

and

THOMAS KOTEL, Respondent.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 22, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0725 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
July 28, 2006
Clerk
#### The Susquehanna Woolen Company, Plaintiff, *v.*The Imperial Coal and Coke Company, Defendant.

(City Court of New York, Trial Term,

March, 1910.)

Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of particular courts — City and Marine Courts.

The City Court of the city of New York has jurisdiction of an action brought by a nonresident of the State against a foreign corporation upon a check made payable in this State, where, after due presentment, payment was demanded therein and was refused.

Motion by defendant for a new trial after direction of verdict for plaintiff. The opinion states the case.

Eugene H. Brock (A. W. Bailey, of counsel), for plaintiff.

William D. Farrington, for defendant.

Finelite, J.

The plaintiff and the defendant are foreign corporations. The plaintiff cashed at its office in Yew Cumberland, Penn., and became the *bona fide*holder of a check made by the defendant, dated Yew York city, April 27, 1909, and drawn on the Carnegie Trust Company, at 115 Broadway, Manhattan borough, Yew York city, to the order of F. B. Sutton, in the sum of $600. Plaintiff duly presented said check for payment at the said Carnegie Trust Company at its office in the city of Yew York, which refused to pay the same, and it was protested. After proving these facts, plaintiff rested, and defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the contract and entire transaction took place in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in or about the city of Cumberland, and that all transactions relative to this contract were had in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; that the money which the plaintiff gave for this check was also paid out in that Commonwealth, and therefore this court had no jurisdiction. The motion was denied. Defendant rested and the court directed a verdict for *622the plaintiff for $662.56. The defendant then made this motion for a new trial, which the court took under advisement. The check was drawn on the Carnegie Trust Company in Kew York and payable there. Upon failure to pay upon presentation and demand at the place mentioned, the breach occurred and the action arose at that time and at that place, and, arising within the State, of Hew York, gives the court jurisdiction of the action under section 1780 of the Code of Civil Procedure, without regard to the residence of the parties plaintiff and defendant. This section has been repeatedly held applicable to this court (see decision in Kline v. Imperial Coal and Coke Co., *ante*616), enlarging section 315 in that respect- Motion for new trial is denied, to which the defendant may have an exception, with ten days' stay of execution after notice of entry of judgment, with thirty days to make and serve a case.

Motion denied.
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-W0955NACOLE Case Studies on Civilian Oversight: Office of the Independent Monitor (Denver, Colorado)The wave of high-profile incidents in 2020 between police and community members prompted widespread calls for greater community oversight of law enforcement agencies. Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement: Report on the State of the Field and Effective Oversight Practices, a white paper by the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, outlines the history of civilian oversight including reference to this case study of the Denver Police Department and eight others.By National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE)Categories: Data and AnalysisLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-w0955Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFWeb • Jul 2021Search catalogreset title abstract authors contentContaining text: exact phraseNot containing text: exact phraseLanguage:anyEnglishSpanishHmongVietnameseCategory:anyAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity PartnershipsData and AnalysisEthics and IntegrityFoundations of Community PolicingHiring, Recruitment, and RetentionHomeland SecurityNew Immigrant CommunitiesNonviolent CrimeOtherPolice OperationsPOP Center ResourceSchool and Campus SafetyTechnologyTribalViolent CrimeYouth SafetyPublished after:Published before:Page1

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Mon Mar 4 2024 at 01:58 (UTC-5) in 0.91 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
32.1 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer of Genesis Capital Corporation of Nevada pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 

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 on Form 10-Q of Genesis Capital Corporation of Nevada (the “Company”) for the quarter ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Richard Astrom, Chief Executive Officer of Genesis Capital Corporation of Nevada, 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. 

Dated: February 16, 2010 

|   |                    |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | /s/ RICHARD ASTROM      |   |
|   |                         |   |
|   | Richard Astrom          |   |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |   |

33

----
----

----

I Actos cuya publicación es una condición para su aplicabilidad

----

REGLAMENTO (CE) No 1089/2005 DE LA COMISIÓN

de 11 de julio de 2005

por el que se establecen valores globales de importación para la determinación del precio de entrada de determinadas frutas y hortalizas

LA COMISIÓN DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS,

Visto el Tratado constitutivo de la Comunidad Europea,

Visto el Reglamento (CE) no 3223/94 de la Comisión, de 21 de diciembre de 1994, por el que se establecen disposiciones de aplicación del régimen de importación de frutas y hortalizas (1), y, en particular, el apartado 1 de su artículo 4,

Considerando lo siguiente:

HA ADOPTADO EL PRESENTE REGLAMENTO:

Artículo 1

Los valores globales de importación a que se refiere el artículo 4 del Reglamento (CE) no 3223/94 quedan fijados según se indica en el cuadro del anexo.

Artículo 2

El presente Reglamento entrará en vigor el 12 de julio de 2005.

El presente Reglamento será obligatorio en todos sus elementos y directamente aplicable en cada Estado miembro.

Hecho en Bruselas, el 11 de julio de 2005.

Por la Comisión

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director General de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural

----

(1)DO L 337 de 24.12.1994, p. 66. Reglamento modificado en último lugar por el Reglamento (CE) no 1947/2002 (DO L 299 de 1.11.2002, p. 17).

----

ANEXO

del Reglamento de la Comisión, de 11 de julio de 2005, por el que se establecen los valores globales de importación para la determinación del precio de entrada de determinadas frutas y hortalizas

----

(1)  Nomenclatura de países fijada por el Reglamento (CE) no 750/2005 de la Comisión (DO L 126 de 19.5.2005, p. 12). El código «999» significa «otros orígenes».

----

Corrección de errores

----

Corrección de errores del Reglamento (CE) no 991/2005 de la Comisión, de 28 de junio de 2005, por el que se establecen valores unitarios para la determinación del valor en aduana de determinadas mercancías perecederas

(Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea L 168 de 30 de junio de 2005)

En la página 12, en el anexo, en la última rúbrica, «2.30; Piñas, frescas», en la tercera columna, «EUR»:

en lugar de:

«62,26»

léase:

«65,26».

----
No. 11-5474.

#### Magassouba *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
§ 17.74 Species-specific rules—conifers and cycads. ( a ) Whitebark pine (*Pinus albicaulis*). ( 1 ) *Prohibitions.* The following prohibitions that apply to endangered plants also apply to whitebark pine, except as provided under paragraph (a)(2) of this section: ( i ) Import or export, as set forth at § 17.61(b) for endangered plants.
( ii ) Remove and reduce to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction, as set forth at § 17.61(c)(1) for endangered plants.
( iii ) Maliciously damage or destroy the species on any areas under Federal jurisdiction, or remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy the species on any other area in knowing violation of any State law or regulation or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law, as set forth at section 9(a)(2)(B) of the Act.
( iv ) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity, as set forth at § 17.61(d) for endangered plants.
( v ) Sell or offer for sale, as set forth at § 17.61(e) for endangered plants.
( 2 ) *Exception* s *from prohibitions.* In regard to the whitebark pine, you may: ( i ) Conduct activities as authorized by permit under § 17.72.
( ii ) Conduct forest-management, restoration, or research-related activities conducted or authorized by the Federal agency with jurisdiction over the land where the activities occur.
( iii ) Remove and reduce to possession from areas under Federal jurisdiction, as set forth at § 17.71(b).
( iv ) Collect whitebark pine seeds from areas under Federal jurisdiction for Tribal ceremonial use or traditional Tribal consumption, provided that: ( A ) The collection is conducted by members of federally recognized Tribes; and
( B ) The collection does not violate any other applicable laws and regulations.
( b ) [Reserved]
[87 FR 76917, Dec. 15, 2022, as amended at 89 FR 23941, Apr. 5, 2024]
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1439/2005

of 2 September 2005         

fixing the additional amount to be paid for peaches in Hungary under Regulation (EC) No 416/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia,

Having regard to the Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 416/2004 of 5 March 2004 laying down transitional measures for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 and Regulation (EC) No 1535/2003 by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union (1), and in particular Article 3(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

An additional amount of EUR 11,92 per tonne of peaches for processing referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 416/2004 shall be paid in Hungary after the end of the 2004/05 marketing year.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 September 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 68, 6.3.2004, p. 12. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 550/2005 (OJ L 93, 12.4.2005, p. 3).

(2)OJ L 218, 30.8.2003, p. 14. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 180/2005 (OJ L 30, 3.2.2005, p. 7).

----
Case 16-25091 Doc 13 Filed 08/11/16 Entered 08/12/16 10:43:26 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1