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

 

**Certification by Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to**

**Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Annette Eggert, certify that:

 

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of KeyOn Communications Holdings, 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 fourth fiscal quarter  that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’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 15, 2009

 

/s/ Annette Eggert              

Annette Eggert

Chief Financial Officer

 

----
Before Chief Judge Rao,

September 21, 1967

No. R67/104.

#### Lollytogs, Ltd. *v.*United States, reappraisements R61/9137, etc. (New York).

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as those in *923Lollytogs, *Ltd.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 608, Neap. Dec. 11073), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise (children’s clothing) and that such value is the appraised unit value, net packed, less 41⁄2 percent of the United States dollar value.
No. P68/74.

protests 63/18736, etc. (Philadelphia).

#### F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Kao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A” covered by the foregoing protests consist of curling irons or hair straightening combs in chief value of iron or steel similar in all material respects to those the subject of *F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 103, C.D. 2617), and that the items marked “B” consist of hair straightening combs in chief value of brass similar in all material respects to those the subject of C.D. 2617, *supra,*the claims of the plaintiff were sustained.
No. 59878.

#### Illfelder Importing Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 265075-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of compass rings similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 58039, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
A89A1641.

#### ANDREW et al. v. DeKALB COUNTY BOARD OF TAX ASSESSORS.

(390 SE2d 115)

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

Norman R. Andrew and Barbara B. Andrew (“taxpayers”) filed an appeal, pro se, to the superior court from a property tax assessment of the DeKalb County Board of Equalization. The superior court dismissed the appeal, finding that the taxpayers’ notice of appeal was deficient because “[a] challenge to methodology is not a proper ground of appeal in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 48-5-311.” This appeal followed. *Held:*

1. “It is clear that any taxpayer may appeal under the provisions of OCGA § 48-5-311 (e) and (f) ‘as to matters of taxability, uniformity of assessment, and value.’ ” (Emphasis omitted.) *Vann v. DeKalb County Bd. of Tax Assessors,*186 Ga. App. 208, 212 (2) (367 SE2d 43). In the case sub judice, the taxpayers’ notice of appeal to the superior court provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “Pursuant to [OCGA §] 48-5-311 I am this date appealing the decision of the DeKalb County Board of Equalization ... of the fair market value of my property located at .... 1st error — Oasis computer (SHP) — not in use factor — reads (SHP 55) = 35% — Should be SHP 70 = or 50%. 2nd error — Oasis computer (PHY) Typographical factor reads 65 = 45% — Should be 70 — or 50%.”

“Tax assessments and appeals should be decided on the merits of the case without procedural technicalities. . . .” *Ledbetter Trucks v. Floyd County Bd. of Tax Assessors,*240 Ga. 791 (2) (242 SE2d 596). In the case sub judice, the taxpayers’ enumerated errors to the superior court were not clearly defined. However, a liberal reading of the notice of appeal indicates that the taxpayers are challenging the assessed value of their property based on an alleged error in computa*275tion. This complaint is directed to value, an appropriate ground for review. See *Williams v. DeKalb County Bd. of Tax Assessors,*249 Ga. 164, 166 (289 SE2d 235). Consequently, the trial court erred in dismissing the taxpayers’ appeal.

Decided January 10, 1990

Rehearing denied January 22, 1990.

Norman R. Andrew, *pro se.*

Barbara B. Andrew, *pro se.*

*Albert Sidney Johnson, Lisa Foster,*for appellee.

2. The DeKalb County Board of Tax Assessors’ motion to dismiss this appeal and motion for damages for frivolous appeal are hereby denied.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Carley, C. J., and Beasley, J., concur.*
# L_2022167EN.01003401.xml

| 24.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 167/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 167/34

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/974

of 16 June 2022

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Cidre du Perche/Perche’ (PDO))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France’s application to register the name ‘Cidre du Perche/Perche’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France’s application to register the name ‘Cidre du Perche/Perche’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Cidre du Perche/Perche’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Cidre du Perche/Perche’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Cidre du Perche/Perche’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.8. Other products listed in Annex I to the Treaty (spices etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of 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, 16 June 2022.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 100, 1.3.2022, p. 43.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
No. 57849.

protests 148401-K/13011, 148402-K/13018, and 148403-K/13027 (New Orleans).

#### Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Geo. Wm. Rueff, Inc.*(41 C. C. P. A. 95, C. A. D. 535), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00355

- CR

Q UINCY B LAKELY

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 211th District

Court

of Denton C ounty (F18

- 1122

- 211)

November 8, 2018

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordere d that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisd iction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Wade Birdwell

___________________ Justice Wade Birdwell
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 2 1

- 2648

__________ GURPREET SINGH ,

Appellant

v. WARDEN BERGEN COUNTY JAIL

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:21

- cv - 00047 ) District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L

. A

. R

. 34.1(a)

July 1 , 2022
Before: KRAUSE, BIBAS and SCIRICA , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed September 20, 2022 )

___________ OPINION *

___________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

PER CURIAM Appellant Gurpreet Singh is a native of India who is subject to a final order of removal to that country. He appeals from the District Court’s August 9, 2021 order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, which challenged his then

- ongoing immigration
detention. In June 2022, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) released Singh from detention based on its determination that “ [c]urrently, there is no significant likelihood that [Singh] will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future, despite the Service’ s and [Singh’s] efforts to effect removal.” 3d Cir. Docket # 26

- 2, at 4 ; see Zadvydas v. Davis , 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) (“[A]n alien may be held in confinement [pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6)] until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.”). In light of this development, this appeal is now moot, and we will dismiss it on that basis. See Djadju v. Vega , 32 F.4th 1102, 110 5

- 09 (11th Cir. 2022); Riley v. INS , 310 F.3d 1253, 125 6

- 5 7 (10th Cir. 2002) ; see also Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp

. , 77 F.3d 690, 698

- 99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being a ble to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”). 1

1 Although Singh fears that ICE will unlawfully detain him in the future, that fear is based merely on speculation

. Se e generally Bridge v . U.S. Parole Comm’n , 981 F.2d 97, 106 (3d Cir. 1992) (“Government officials are presumed to act in good faith.”).
MEMORANDUM TO FILE 

TO: Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0009; Approval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Navajo Nation; Regional Haze Requirements for Navajo 

Generating Station; Proposed Rule 

FROM: Anita Lee 

Date: July 18, 2013 

Subject: Record of Meeting with NGS Stakeholders during Public Comment Period 

1. Participants at Meeting 

 Deborah Jordan, Colleen McKaughan, Ann Lyons, and Anita Lee, EPA – Region 9 

 David Palumbo, US Bureau of Reclamation 

 Bruce Polkowski, Environmental Defense Fund 

 Marie Pearthree, Central Arizona Project 

 Kelly Barr and Grant Smedley, Salt River Project 

 Tamara Saltman and Janet McCabe, EPA – OAR (by phone from Washington, DC) 

 Letty Belin, DOI (by phone from Washington, DC) 

2. Date and Location of Meeting: 

 July 9, 2013 in San Francisco, CA 

3. General Statement of the Topic of Discussion: 

 Technical Working Group formed to develop an alternative to BART for NGS 

4. Copy of Any Materials Presented or Received: 

 No materials were received 

 NGS stakeholders showed a power point presentation to inform EPA that they intend to submit a 

BART alternative to EPA shortly
No. 51215.

#### Protests 88713-K, etc., of Ti Hang Lung & Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited íd Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          14,405
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,288
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,993
<INVENTORY>                                     21,648
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,509
<PP&E>                                       1,300,159
<DEPRECIATION>                                 487,801
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,506,860
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          172,080
<BONDS>                                      1,757,704
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,035
<OTHER-SE>                                   (438,568)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,506,860
<SALES>                                         29,329
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               264,501
<CGS>                                           23,161
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  221,537
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,422
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,477
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,753
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,619)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,619)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,619)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)
        

</TABLE>
# L_2022268EN.01001201.xml

| 14.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 268/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 268/12

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/1940

of 7 October 2022

conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name ‘Vézelay’ (PDO)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | In accordance with Article 97(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the Commission examined France’s application to register the name ‘Vézelay’ and published it in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In accordance with Article 97(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the Commission examined France’s application to register the name ‘Vézelay’ and published it in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

| (3) | In accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the name ‘Vézelay’ should be protected and entered in the register referred to in Article 104 of that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the name ‘Vézelay’ should be protected and entered in the register referred to in Article 104 of that Regulation.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Vézelay’ (PDO) is hereby protected.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of 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, 7 October 2022.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 147, 4.4.2022, p. 6.

2

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED
STATES CODE, SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Natus Medical Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James B. Hawkins, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(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.



/s/ James B. HawkinsPrint Name:

James B. HawkinsTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: August 9, 2006


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Natus Medical Incorporated (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven J. Murphy, Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(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.



/s/ Steven J. MurphyPrint Name:

Steven J. MurphyTitle:

Vice President Finance and Chief Financial OfficerDate: August 9, 2006
A89A2218.

#### MASON v. THE STATE.

(390 SE2d 246)

Banke, Presiding Judge.

On appeal from his conviction of selling cocaine, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on the defense of entrapment.

Two undercover narcotics officers testified that the appellant waved at them to stop while they were traveling in an unmarked patrol car, approached their vehicle, and asked them if they “were looking for anything.” They testified that they told the appellant they were looking for cocaine and that he then offered to take them to a place where they could get some. The appellant got into the car with the officers and over the next 30 to 45 minutes directed them to several different locations, until they ultimately arrived at a mobile home park where, after obtaining $100 from the officers and leaving them his driver’s license as security, he departed the vehicle. Upon his return approximately five minutes later, he handed them a quantity of cocaine, and they arrested him.

The appellant maintained that it was the officers who had stopped him on the night in question and that he had gotten into their car merely to get a ride home. While he denied being a seller of cocaine, he admitted being a user, stating that he had taken the officers’ money “to see if [he] could buy some cocaine from somebody for them” with the expectation that they would share it with him if he was successful. *Held:*

“Entrapment exists where the idea and intention of the commission of the crime originated with a government officer . . . and he, by undue persuasion, incitement or deceitful means, induced the accused to commit the act which the accused would not have committed except for the conduct of such officer.” OCGA § 16-3-25. Even assuming that the idea to purchase cocaine originated with the officers, there is no suggestion that they induced the appellant to commit the crime through “undue persuasion, incitement or deceitful means.” Accord *153
      *Harold v. State,*185 Ga. App. 481 (1) (364 SE2d 615) (1988); *McDonald v. State,*156 Ga. App. 143 (4) (273 SE2d 881) (1980). Rather, “ ‘[t]he trial transcript clearly shows that the defendant was a willing seller ... to the undercover agent[s], and the authorities merely provided him with an opportunity to make a sale he was predisposed to make. “(T)here is no entrapment where the officer merely furnishes an opportunity to a defendant who is ready to commit the offense.” [Cits.]’ ” *Mafnas v. State,*149 Ga. App. 286, 290 (254 SE2d 409) (1979). It follows that the trial court did not err in refusing the appellant’s request for a charge on entrapment.

Decided January 2, 1990.

*Robbins & White, Stanley W. Robbins,*for appellant.

*C. Andrew Fuller, District Attorney, Daniel A. Summer, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Sognier and Pope, JJ., concur.*