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

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert Malin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of  A.B.Watley  Group
Inc.;

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

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

4. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer(s)  and I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) 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(s) and I have disclosed,  based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,  to the
registrant's  auditors  and the audit  committee  of the  registrant's  board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      a) all significant  deficiencies and material  weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal  control over  financial  reporting  which are  reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's  internal control over
financial reporting.

                                     /s/ Robert Malin
                                     ----------------------------------
                                     Robert Malin
                                     Principal Financial Officer


Date: July 6, 2004
116 STAT. 926 PUBLIC LAW 107–207—AUG. 5, 2002

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2175:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–186 (Comm. on the Judiciary).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):

Mar. 12, considered and passed House.

July 18, considered and passed Senate.

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):

Aug. 5, Presidential remarks.

Æ

Public Law 107–207

107th Congress

An Act

To protect infants who are born alive.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Born-Alive Infants Protection

Act of 2002’’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code,

is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘§ 8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as

including born-alive infant

‘‘(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or

of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ‘person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’, shall include every

infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at

any stage of development.

‘‘(b) As used in this section, the term ‘born alive’, with respect

to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete

expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member,

at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction

breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord,

or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether

the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the

expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced

labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

‘‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny,

expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to

any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to

being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.’’.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by

adding at the end the following new item:

‘‘8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as including born-alive infant.’’.

Approved August 5, 2002.

1 USC 1 note.

Born-Alive

Infants

Protection Act of

2002.

Aug. 5, 2002

[H.R. 2175]
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.36 MB)
 
 A coalition air campaign and the enabling of indigenous ground forces has helped push the Islamic St a U.S. Central Command spokesman said here today.
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
From: Hannah Honeyman

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Birth Control

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:16:57 AM

     I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in

asking you to accept the recommendations of the Institute of 

     Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new

health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious

     employers.” These preventive services are a critical element of the new

law and would provide countless women better access to

     necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny

women access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological

distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the government to

make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the

exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with

religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement,

even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted,

this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just

because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by

accepting IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious

refusal exemption provisions.
From: Carol Sauceda

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support for Preventive Care

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:39:48 PM

Dear Legislature:

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept

the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care

under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These

preventive services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women

better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services,

are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are

pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with

religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they

employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny

access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Sincerely,

Carol

Carol L. Sauceda
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6896** 

BENJAMIN WILLIAM FAWLEY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Mark S. Davis , District Judge. ( 2:09

- cv - 00452

- MSD

- FBS )

Submitted : August 26, 2010 Decided: September 7, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Benjamin William Fawley, Appellant Pro Se. Erin M. Kul p a, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding preced ent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Benjamin William Fawley seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006) . 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) (2006)
. When t he district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debata ble claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fawley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the app eal. We deny his motion to appoint counsel and to compel provision of state court documents. We dispense with oral argument because3 the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 60726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19128]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: September 8, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: Washington, DC.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Meeting of the Board of Governors

Friday, September 8, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.

    1. Financial Matters.
    2. Administrative Matters.

GENERAL COUNSEL CERTIFICATION: The General Counsel of the United States 
Postal Service has certified that the meeting may be closed under the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Michael J. Elston, Secretary of 
the Board of Governors, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 
Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.

Michael J. Elston,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19128 Filed 8-31-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
file:///C|/..._List_29-08-2011_12-55-54-352/Document%20List%2029-08-2011%2012-55-54-352_docs/EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0036.html[8/29/2011 1:20:23 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 29, 2011

Received: August 23, 2011

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80eeaa5e

Comments Due: September 30, 2011

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0018

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of

Preventive Services Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0018-0002

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services under

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: EBSA-2010-0018-DRAFT-0036

Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: Tina Carol Goad

Address:

TX, 77498

Email: thegoadhouse@comcast.net

General Comment

I am not happy with having to pay extremely high personal premiums on health care; and not having

a say in what I am paying for. I do not believe in a "free" society that I should have to care for "the

pill" or "aborition rights" for individuals that cannot control themselves. "Themselves" being the key.

If the "government" wants to work that into their ordaining verbage...perhaps they shoud ask if the

person paying for the personal health care is ever intending to use "said services".

I am not at all a citizen that would volunteer to pay for someone else"s lack of self control. Although

I am forced to do just that!

My personal monthly healthcare premimus are already astronomical due to other people not taking

care of themselves; and rising health care costs because of it.

It already makes me sick that this is even an issue, when there are so many hungry, or homeless in

our country.
No. 416, Misc.

#### De Mello *v.*Langlois, Warden.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island. Certiorari denied.
From: terry domino

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception!

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:14:24 PM

--- On Wed, 8/10/11, AAUW Action Network <VoterEd@aauw.org> wrote:

From: AAUW Action Network <VoterEd@aauw.org>

Subject: Support Access to Preventive Care and Contraception!

To: "Theresa Domino" <terrydomino@yahoo.com>

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011, 5:48 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking

you to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for

all contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions

even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of

all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access

to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by

accepting IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal

exemption provisions.

Yours truly,

theresa A Domino

 If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, or you wish to update your contact information,

please click here.
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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    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
  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; andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Michael K. FarrellMichael K. FarrellPresident
From: Cynthia Laughlin

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine

Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011 11:00:02 AM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to

thousands of women just because of where they work.

Cynthia Laughlin

AAUW Member
From: steve@fishfinders.biz

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:11:48 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

steve fisher

Columbus, IN 47201
From: Ruth Miller

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: preventative health care and contraception

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:53:48 AM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new

health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a

critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health

care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to contraceptive

services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the

government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to

apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from

the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this

larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Sincerely,

RUth MIller