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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Case Financial, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Lawrence Schaffer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Rules 13a-14 and 15-d14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted
pursuant to ss.302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. I have reviewed the Report;

2. Based upon my knowledge, the Report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading;

3. Based upon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in the Report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company, as of, and for,
the periods presented in the Report;

4. I and the other certifying officers of the Company:

      -     are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
            and procedures for the Company;

      -     have designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
            material information is made known to us, particularly during the
            period in which the Report is being prepared;

      -     have evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure
            controls and procedures within 90 days of the date of the Report;
            and

      -     have presented in the Report our conclusions about the effectiveness
            of the disclosure controls and procedures based on the required
            evaluation.

5. I and the other certifying officers have disclosed to the Company's auditors
and to the audit committee of the board of directors (or persons fulfilling the
equivalent function):

o all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
(a pre-existing term relating to internal controls regarding financial
reporting) which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
Company's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

o any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal controls.

6. I and the other certifying officers have indicated in the Report whether or
not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of their
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

/s/ Lawrence Schaffer
------------------------
Lawrence Schaffer
Chief Financial Officer
January 31, 2005
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-20610

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Trayvees Duncan-Bush, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-7-5

Before Graves, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Trayvees Duncan-Bush has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Duncan-Bush has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 11, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-20610 Document: 00515897276 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2021
No. 19-20610

2

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 19-20610 Document: 00515897276 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2021
PROMISSORY NOTE – 2015 SALARY


 


$177,213.33Date: December 31,
2015


FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Skinvisible, Inc., of 6320 South Sandhill Road, Suite 10, Las Vegas, NV 89120 promises to pay
to the order of Terry Howlett (“Lender”), whose address, or such other place as the 
Lender


may
designate in writing to the undersigned, the principal sum of One Hundred and Seventy- Seven Thousand, Two Hundred and Thirteen
and Thirty-Three Cents ($177,213.33), together
with interest thereon from date hereof until paid, at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum as follows: The entire principal
and interest amount shall be repaid on or before December 31, 2020.


All or any part of the aforesaid
principal sum may be prepaid at any time and from time to time without penalty. This note is in regards to gross salary, plus vacation
due from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015.


Upon written request by Lender, the
principal of this loan may be converted to common shares of Skinvisible, Inc. at the price of Two Cents ($0.02) per share
at any time up until December 31, 2020. In addition, the Company will issue
a warrant agreement in the name of your designate, which will give the holder the right to purchase further shares at Two Cents
($0.02) per share if exercised within 3 years following the conversion date. The warrant agreement will give the holder
the right to purchase one share for every two shares acquired by the holder in this transaction for an aggregate total of Four
Million, Four Hundred Thirty Thousand, Three Hundred and Twenty-Five (4,430,325) additional shares at the above
price.


 


This note is made and executed
under, and is in all respects governed by, the laws of the State of Nevada.





 


Skinvisible, Inc.
Before the Third Division,

April 5, 1946

No. 51001.

#### Protests 114444-K, etc., of W. F. Mackay (Pembina).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all matérial- respects as that- passed upon in *Tower & Sons*v. *United Stales*(14 Cust. Ct. 94, C. D. 919). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry was sustained.
October 16, 2009

Mr. Richard Mattick

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response's (OSWER's)

Policy Analysis and Regulatory Management

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460

Dear Mr. Mattick:

On behalf of The U.S. Conference of Mayors, I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your forthcoming

proposal to regulate Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) or Coal Combustion Byproducts (CCB).

The U.S. Conference of Mayors strongly opposes the idea of labeling of CCRs or CCBs as a hazardous waste. We

do, however, encourage the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to label CCRs and CCBs as a non

‐ hazardous

waste and for this material to be properly disposed of as any other non

‐ hazardous material.

The Mayors of this nation are on the forefront of protecting public health while maintaining the economic vitality

of their communities. CCBs should be regulated as a non

‐ hazardous waste to allow these byproducts to be safely

managed in a manner that fully protects public health and the environment without generating the severe

economic impact that would result if EPA labels CCBs as a hazardous material. CCBs are now being safely used in

concrete and other construction materials. However, by labeling CCR as a hazardous waste, EPA would severely

curtail the use of these byproducts in this safe manner. Additionally, the resulting increased costs for the disposal

and transportation would present an undue financial burden on constituents and local businesses.

Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Attached you will also find a copy of the letters we have received

so far on this matter. If you have any questions, please call Judy Sheahan of my staff at 202

‐ 861

‐ 6775 or email her

at jsheahan@usmayors.org

.

Sincerely,

Tom Cochran

CEO and Executive Director

The U.S. Conference of Mayors

cc: Andrew Hanson, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
No. 41782.

#### Protest 572443-G of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found that certain items consist of Normandy laces similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
No. 44997.

#### Protest 823596-G of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Olivee, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the merchandise in question was held dutiable as follows: (1) uninflated rubber balls or so-called beach balls similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Woolworth*(24 C. C. P. A. 338, T. D. 48770) at 30 percent under paragraph 1502; (2) squawker balloons, cigarette whistles, and novelties in part of bamboo at 45 percent under paragraph 409, Abstracts 40493 and 39509 followed; (3) trick daggers at 45 percent under paragraph 397, Abstract 37637 followed; (4) wooden cabinets like those the subject of Abstract 37636 at 33)4 percent under paragraph 412; and (5) tin kazoos, siren whistles and horns, and metal puzzles at 45 percent under paragraph 397, Abstracts 32264, 40480, and 38029 followed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 18, 2022.

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, May 18, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A22D0380. PETER NWAIZUZU v. VILLAGES AT CREEKSIDE HOMEOWNERS 

ASSOC. INC.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2021CV01297
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF				PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER OF				HYBRID DYNAMICS CORPORATION				PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Darren Jensen, Principal Accounting Officer of Hybrid Dynamics Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Company fully complies with the requirements of that section.				I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial operations and results of operations of the Company.

| Date:  May 31, 2007                                                                |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                               |
| By:  /s/ DARREN JENSEN           |
| Darren Jensen                                                                           |
| Principal Accounting Officer                                                            |

----
TP 7245E 1 of 1
AD Number: CF
- 201 5 - 04 Issue Date: 1 7 March 201 5 

# AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

The following airworthiness directive (AD) may be applicable to an aircraft which our records indicate is registered in your name . ADs are issued pursuant to **Canadian Aviation Regulation**  (CAR) 521 Division X . Pursuant to CAR 605.84 and the further details of CAR Standard 625, Appendix H , the continuing airworthiness of a Canadian registered aircraft is contingent upon compliance with all applicable ADs. Failure to comply with the requirements of an AD may invalida te the flight authorization of the aircraft. Al ternative means of compliance shall be applied for in accordance with CAR 605.84 and the above

- referenced Standard

. This AD has been issued by the Continuing Airworthiness Division (AARDG), National Aircraft Certification Branch, Transport C anada, Ottawa, telephone 613 952

- 4357. Number: CF

- 201 5

- 04 Effective Date: 31 March 2 0 1 5
ATA: 34 Type Certificate: A

- 234 Subject : Navigation

– Pitot

- Static Probe Heater F ailure Applicability: Bombardier Inc. m odel BD

- 100

- 1A10 aeroplanes, serial numbers 20003 to 20500

. Com pliance: Within 24 months from the effective date of this AD, unless already accomplished. Background: There have been several reports where the p itot

- s tatic p robe heater came on and remain ed on regardless of the heater control selected position. Inves tigation determined that the root cause is a short circuit between the heater element and the metal sheath. If not corrected, this condition may degrade the heating , resulting in erroneous Airspeed I ndication when flying in icing condition. This AD mandates the replace ment of the p itot

- s tatic p robes with a redesigned probe which will prevent this failure mode.
Corrective Actions: Remove and r eplace the left and right p itot

- s tatic p robes with the new design p itot

- s tatic p robes, part numbers (P/N) 0856WC3 and 0856WC4 respectively

. Bombardier Aerospace Service Bulletin 100

- 34

- 38, Basic Issue, dated 9 January 2014, or later revisions approved by the Chief, Continuing Airworthiness, Transport Canada, provides approved instructions for replacing the p itot

- s tatic p robes. As of the effective date of this AD, it is prohibited for anyone to install p itot

- s tatic p robes w ith P/N s 0856WC1 or 0856WC2

. Authorization: For the Minister of Transport,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Derek Ferguson Chief, Continuing Airworthiness
Contact: Gordanko Jeremic , Continuing Airworthiness, Ottawa, telephone 613

- 952

- 4357, facsimile 613

- 996

- 9178 or e

- mail AD

- CN@tc.gc.ca or any Transport Canada Centre.

Pursuant to CAR 202.51 the registered owner of a Canadian aircraft shall, within seven days, notify the Minister in writing of any change of his or her name or address. For all changes to your mailing address, contact your TC Regional Aircraft Registration Office at 1

- 800

- 305

- 2059, option 1 for English, 2 for Aircraft Registration and then select the appropriate region. 24

- 0022 (01

- 2005)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Chanel Senor, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 480]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.), rendered February 2, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Joy, J. P., Hart, Gold-stein and Florio, JJ., concur.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEO ARCHER,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-04-2249 MCE KJM P 

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY SUPERIOR 

COURT, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an

application for writ of habeas corpus. In light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, the

court has determined that the interests of justice require appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Federal Defender is appointed to represent petitioner.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the petition and this order

on David Porter, Assistant Federal Defender.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02249-MCE -KJM Document 6 Filed 09/28/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

3. Petitioner’s counsel shall contact the Clerk’s Office to make arrangements for 

copies of documents in the file.

4. A status conference is set for October 12, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. before the

undersigned.

DATED: September 27, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

arch2249.110a

Case 2:04-cv-02249-MCE -KJM Document 6 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6405

STEVEN R. DELK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL YOUNCE, Unit Manager; WALTER SWINEY, Unit Manager; 

DWAYNE TURNER; STACY DAY, Lieutenant; PAUL PAYNE, Lieutenant;

RANDALL C. MATHENA, Warden; JOHN WALRATH, Assistant Warden; 

GEORGE HINKLE, Regional Administrator; ISRAEL HAMILTON, Institutional 

Program Manager; J. KING, Counselor; LOUIS B. CEI, Doctor; R. BIVENS, 

Western Regional Grievance Department,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

CURTIS PARR, Regional Ombudsman; R. MULLINS, Human Rights Activist; J. 

MESSER, Grievance Coordinator; G. ROBINSON, Ombudsman Service Unit 

Manager; JOHN DOE, Western Regional Grievance Department,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (7:14-cv-00643-NKM-RSB)

Submitted: December 27, 2017 Decided: January 18, 2018

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven R. Delk, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Hoehl O’Shea, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Steven R. Delk appeals the district court’s final order denying relief on his civil 

rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Delk v. Younce, No. 7:14-cv-00643-

NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2016; Mar. 14, 2017). We also deny Delk’s motions for 

appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## Court of Appeals

Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler



## B I L L O F C O S T S

Court of Appeals No. 12-15-00046-CV

Trial Court No. 41,349

The State of Texas for the Best Interest and Protection of T. M.

DOCUMENTS FILED AMOUNT FEE PAID BY

Clerk's record

Reporter's record

Indigent

Required Texas.gov efiling fee

Filing

Supreme Court chapter 51 fee $407.00

$130.50

$25.00

$20.00

$100.00

$50.00 none

Harris County

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

TOTAL: $732.50

I, Cathy S. Lusk, Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler,

Texas, certify that the above copy of the Bill of Costs is true and correct. GIVEN UNDER MY

HAND AND SEAL OF SAID COURT, at Tyler, this 7th day of August 2015

, A.D.

CATHY LUSK, CLERK

By:

_____________________________ Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk
#### Ronald R. Zurner, Appellant, v Patricia K. Zurner, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 638]

—Peters, J.

Appeal from that part of an amended judgment of the Supreme Court (Rose, J.), entered March 25, 1994 in Broome County, which, *inter alia,*fixed the date for commencement of child support.

An appeal involving the parties to this divorce action was previously before this Court (213 AD2d 906). Notably, in 1992, prior to plaintiff being awarded a judgment of divorce against defendant, a custody hearing was held in Family Court after which, in an October 1992 decision, the parties were awarded *749joint legal custody of their minor children with plaintiff to have primary physical custody. Thereafter, in June 1993, following the entry of the original judgment of divorce, plaintiff apparently petitioned Family Court for child support. At that time, a question arose as to the appropriate date for support to commence and the matter was referred back to Supreme Court for further direction on that point. While plaintiff argued, *inter alia,*that the date of the service of the summons and complaint or the date of the custody award should be the appropriate commencement date, Supreme Court held that support payments would not commence until June 2, 1993, the date of Supreme Court’s original judgment. This appeal by plaintiff followed.

The law is clear that the child support provisions of a judgment entered in a divorce action "shall * * * be effective as of the date of the application therefor” (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [7] [a]; *see, Faber v Faber,*206 AD2d 644, 646-647; *Purcell v Purcell,*202 AD2d 487, 488). Notably, when a request for child support is specifically identified as ancillary relief in the summons or complaint, this is considered the date from which the obligation to provide support commences *[see, e.g., Burns v Burns,*84 NY2d 369, 377; *Spain v Spain,*130 AD2d 806, 809; *Evangelista v Evangelista,*111 AD2d 904, 905). Here, however, although defendant requested custody of the children and child support in her answer, plaintiff only requested custody in his summons and complaint.

Plaintiff’s statement of proposed disposition, admitted into evidence at the equitable distribution hearing on January 28, 1993, specifically proposed that he receive child support from defendant. Further, the agreement between plaintiff and defendant that support would be calculated pursuant to the Child Support Standards Act was stated in open court at the equitable distribution hearing on January 28, 1993. Accordingly, we conclude that defendant’s child support obligation should commence from the date of the first identifiable request for child support *{see, Koczaja v Koczaja,*195 AD2d 693, *Iv denied*83 NY2d 756), namely January 28, 1993.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the amended judgment is modified, on the facts, without costs, by changing the commencement date of defendant’s child support obligation to January 28, 1993, and, as so modified, affirmed.