alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATIONSI, Ronald B. Clark, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Jafra Worldwide Holdings (Lux) S.àr.l.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date May 15, 2006   /s/ RONALD B. CLARK   Ronald B. Clark  Chief Executive Officer
Case 2:05-cr-00240-GEB     Document 182     Filed 02/03/2006     Page 1 of 3

Case 2:05-cr-00240-GEB     Document 182     Filed 02/03/2006     Page 2 of 3

Case 2:05-cr-00240-GEB     Document 182     Filed 02/03/2006     Page 3 of 3
(Reap. Dec. 10404)

Entry No. 16964, etc.

#### John A. Conkey & Co. v. United States

(Decided December 19, 1962)

*Barnes, Richardson & Ooldurn*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> *493IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between tbe parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court, as follows:

> 1. That the merchandise and the issues involved in the appeals for reap-praisement enumerated in Schedule “A”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *Gitkin Co.,*A.R.D. 132, and that the record in the cited case may be incorporated in the record herein.

> 2. That at the dates of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for exportation to the United States to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature ánd all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the appraised values less the items marked “X” in red ink.

> 3. That the involved merchandise was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 27, 1958, and is not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54521).

On tlie agreed facts and following tbe cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is statutory export value and hold that such value therefor is the appraised values, less the items marked “X” in red ink on the invoices.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 46705.

#### Protest 67360-K of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The atomizers in question similar to those the subject of Abstract 44140 were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 218 (f) as claimed.
**STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE EPA**  **- HQ**  **- OW** **- 2009**  **- 0819** 
**DCN: SE0**  **2988 THE FOLLOWING**  **HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION**  **(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.**
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 Warning Model Management, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brian Bonar, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigneds knowledge and belief:
 
 (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 result of operations of
 the Company.
 
 
 August 20 , 2004
 
 
 /s/ Brian Bonar
 Brian Bonar, Chief Executive Officer
 and Director
October 5, 1956

Reap. Dec. 8682.

#### *Jacob Sohnen & Sons Feather Co., Inc.*v. *United States.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. Reap. Dec. 8592. Motion by plaintiff.
GAO-02-758R National Mining Hall of Fame and Museum 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 

May 17, 2002 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Federally Chartered Corporation: Review of the Financial Statement Audit 

Report for the National Mining Hall of Fame and Museum for 2000

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

As requested, we reviewed the audit report covering the financial statements of the 

National Mining Hall of Fame and Museum, a federally chartered corporation, for the 

year ended December 31, 2000. The corporation’s purposes include honoring people 

who have made contributions to the establishment, development, advancement, or 

improvement of mining in the United States; and establishing and maintaining a 

library and museum for collecting and preserving the history of mining. 

Federally chartered corporations are required under 36 U.S.C. 10101 to 

• present the corporation’s assets and liabilities and reasonable detail on the 

corporation’s income and expenses in annual financial statements, 

• obtain an annual financial audit by an independent public accountant, and 

• submit the auditors’ report and the corporation’s financial statements to the 

Congress. 

The objective of our review was to determine whether the audit report complied with 

the financial reporting requirements of the law. In carrying out our work, we 

reviewed the corporation’s financial statements and the accompanying notes, 

performed certain analytical procedures related to information presented in the 

financial statements, and reviewed the auditors’ report. However, we did not review 

the auditors’ working papers, and we are not rendering an audit opinion. Our review 

disclosed no reportable instances of noncompliance with the financial reporting 

requirements of the law. 
Page 2 GAO-02-758R National Mining Hall of Fame and Museum 

The audit report included the auditors’ opinion that the financial statements of the 

corporation were presented fairly in accordance with U. S. generally accepted 

accounting principles. We are returning the audit report you sent with your letter. 

Sincerely yours, 

Jeanette M. Franzel 

Acting Director 

Financial Management and Assurance 

w/o Enclosure 

(194101)
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-11029

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A200-939-955

EMMA ESPERANZA MEDINA-MENENDEZ, 

 Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(September 8, 2014)

Before PRYOR, MARTIN and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Emma Esperanza Medina-Menendez seeks review of a final order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen her

Case: 14-11029 Date Filed: 09/08/2014 Page: 1 of 3 
2

proceedings in order for her to apply for a Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver

under 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e). The BIA denied Ms. Medina-Menendez’s motion 

because she was already subject to a final order of removal and, thus, ineligible for 

the waiver she sought. On appeal, Ms. Medina-Menendez argues that she is 

eligible for the provisional waiver on almost all of the required criteria, that the 

congressional intent behind the waiver is to maintain “family unity,” and that the 

BIA’s decision effectively goes against this intent by not allowing her proceedings 

to be reopened.

The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for an abuse of

discretion. See Ali v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 443 F.3d 804, 808 (11th Cir. 2006). This 

review “is limited to determining whether there has been an exercise of

administrative discretion and whether the matter of exercise has been arbitrary or 

capricious.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Generally, 

motions to reopen are disfavored, especially in a removal proceeding, where, as a 

general matter, every delay works to the advantage of the deportable alien who 

wishes merely to remain in the United States.” Id. (citation, alterations, and 

internal quotation marks omitted).

“The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen . . . is within the discretion 

of the [BIA],” which “has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party 

moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). Failure 

Case: 14-11029 Date Filed: 09/08/2014 Page: 2 of 3 
3

to establish a prima facie case for relief is, however, one of the grounds upon 

which the BIA may deny a motion to reopen. See Jiang v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 568 

F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). 

An alien is not eligible for a provisional unlawful presence waiver if “[t]he 

alien is subject to a final order of removal issued under section 217, 235, 238, or 

240 of the Act . . . any other provision of law.” 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(e)(4)(vi). 

Because she was subject to a final order of removal, Ms. Medina-Mendez was

ineligible for the Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver. As such, she could not 

establish a prima facie case that she was eligible for the relief she sought, and the 

BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to reopen.

PETITION DENIED.

Case: 14-11029 Date Filed: 09/08/2014 Page: 3 of 3
1 

### B E C K H A M , L I SA

Fr o m: B E C KH AM , LISA S e nt: T hur s d ay , D ecem b e r 18 , 2014 6 : 28 AM T o: St e v e B urr S u b j ec t: R e : A ri zo n a NS R R ul es Att a chme nt s: A Z NS R R ul e s I ss u e s 12

- 17

- 2014 .xl sx



### H i S t e v e H e r e 's t h e d o c u m e n t f o r t o d a y 's d is c u ssi o n

. O n l y i t e ms 1 -2 8 p r o b a b l y r e q u ir e a d is c u ssi o n

. T h e o t h e r i t e ms y o u c a n a d d a r e s p o n s e i n t h e l as t c o l u m n a n d s e nd b a c k t o m e

.
T h a n k s !

F r o m: BECK H A M , L ISA S en t: M o nd a y , D e c e m b e r 8 , 2 01 4 4 : 1 6 P M T o: BECK H A M , L IS A ; W al te r s, Ju li e; S t e v e B u r r ; R 9 -C o n f L i n e -Car d 1

- AI R

_ O n l y / C o n f- L i n e / R e g i o n
- 9 -RE S T R I C T E D C c: R i o s, G e rar d o Sub j e c t: A ri z o n a N S R R u l e s When: T hu rs d a y , D e c e m b e r 1 8 , 2 0 1 4 1 : 0 0 P M

- 2 : 0 0 P M

. Whe r e: R 9 -R oo m
- 1 7 0 6

- 1 0

- AI R

_ O n l y
- J a m e s F o/ R e g i o n
- 9 -RE S T R I C T ED



### N e w t im e
(Reap. Dec. 8234)

#### A. L. Tuska Son & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 760075, etc.

(Decided June 26, 1953)

*Siegel, Mandell &■ Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

.Oliver, Chief Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement enumerated above are the same in all material respects as the issues involved in *United States*v. *New York Merchandise Co., Inc.,*A. R. D. 17, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise covered by the invoices subject to the reappraisements herein, less the item of a buying commission of 7J4% and/or 10% as noted on the invoices and deducted on entry, are equal to the price at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the appraised values, less the items of a buying commission of 7% per centum and/or 10 per centum as noted on the invoices and deducted on the entries.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 59001.

protest 233694-K (New York).

#### W. J. Byrnes & Co., Inc., N. Y. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of ingots of aluminum which were assessed at *tyi*cents per pound under paragraph 374 on a net weight of 681,449 pounds; that said merchandise had a net weight of 662,333 pounds; and that if the collector’s review period as provided' in section 515, had not expired, the entry would have been reliquidated on a net weight of 662,333 pounds. In view of the stipulation, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained, and the collector was directed to reliquidate, assessing duty on the basis of a net weight of 662,333 pounds.
No. 49653.

#### Protests 58451-K, etc., of Nat E. Berzen, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel sole crepe rubber similar to that the subjéct of *United States*v. *F. Lester Kittle, Inc.*(31 C. C. P. A. 233, C. A. D. 276) was held entitled to free entry as claimed.
**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 Atlas America Public #12-2003 Limited
Partnership (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the Managing
General Partner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
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
      Partnership.







By:
    /s/
      Freddie M. KotekName:
    Freddie
      M. KotekTitle:
    Chief
      Executive OfficerDate:
    May
      16, 2005






16
No. 51423.

#### Protest 998179-G of Fred. Haslam & Co., Inc. (New York).

*221Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

At the trial the plaintiff moved in evidence, without objection, two memorandums signed by the assistant appraiser at New York, the truth of the contents of which was agreed to by counsel for the Government. It appeared therefrom that as to the merchandise classified at 40 percent under paragraph 923, it consists of bougies and catheters in chief value of gum, similar to that covered by *Bard*v. *United States*(T. D. 49189) and *Bard*v. *United States*(2 Cust. Ct. 244, C. D. 134), therein held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1558; that as to the merchandise classified at 65 percent under paragraph 1211, the items on the invoice marked “X” are similar to those held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 397, as in chief value of metal, and that as to the remaining items assessed at 65 percent, they are all similar to those held to be in chief value of gum in said T. D. 49189 and C. D. 134, dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1558. The protest was sustained to the extent indicated but overruled n all other respects.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

KATHRYN JEANE PASHUCK, EXECUTRIX

UNDER WILL OF NELLI CZAJKOWSKY AKA ANASTASIA NELLIE CZAJKOWSKY,

DECEASED

v.

ANDRE TYLER, KEVIN RAVENELL, AMIYR A. MUHAMMAD, AND ADAM

BEYAH

PETITION OF: ANTHONY B. QUINN,
ESQUIRE :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 520 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of May, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
No. 6592.

#### STATE, EX REL., LOUIS P. CIEUTAT, vs. DEMOCRATIC PARISH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, ET ALS.

Appeal from the 28th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. John the Baptist, No. 482. Honorable John E. Fleury, Judge.

G-uion, Lambremont and Chenet, for plaintiff and appellant.

P. E. Edrington, Jr., L. M. Reynaud, for defendant and appellee.

Per Curiam.

This case presents the same question involved in the matter of State, ex rel., Elfer vs. Parish Democratic Exec*270utive Committee, et als., No. 6500 of our docket, this day decided, and for the reasons therein set forth,

Opinion and decree, December 22nd, 1915.

The judgment herein is annulled and reversed and it is now decreed that there be judgment in favor of relator herein ordering and commanding the respondents herein 'to print and cause to be printed the name of relator upon all ballots to be used .and cast at' the primary election to be held in the Parish of St. John the Baptist on January 25, 1916, as a candidate of the Democratic Party for nomination to the office of Constable, Ward 4, of said Parish, .and to certify relator’s name .as such candidate to the Secretary of State of Louisiana; and it is further decreed that respondents pay the costs of both Courts.

Reversed.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)
      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;
andc)
    
    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
controls 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 controls over financial reporting.
  /s/ Mark J. DeCesarisMark J. DeCesarisacting Chief Financial Officer
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 03, 2014.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 03, 2014

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15A0292. PHILLIP SIMS v. FIRST ATLANTIC MORTGAGE, LLC et al..

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.