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

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

(Section 302 Certification)

I, Beth Sanders, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of 1st Centennial Bancorp;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual
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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual 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 subsidiary, 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 the annual 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

5. The registrants other certifying officer 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.

Date: October 25, 2006



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Beth Sanders                                    
|Beth Sanders,                                       
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-09-385-CV

DANY JOE GUEST, MARRY E. TINDLE,	APPELLANTS

AND CYNTHIA E. MARTIN

	V.

TXU ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM PROBATE COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	On December 29, 2009, we notified appellants that the trial court clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal had informed this court that arrangements had not been made to pay for the clerk’s record as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.3(a)(2).  See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a)(2).  We stated that we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless appellants, within fifteen days, made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record and provided this court with proof of payment.  

	Because appellants have not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s record, it is the opinion of the court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.   Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b).

	Appellants shall pay all costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM 		 	

PANEL:  MEIER, LIVINGSTON, and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

DELIVERED:  January 28, 2010
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, each of the undersigned officers of United EcoEnergy Corp., (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to each such officer’s knowledge, that:





(1)    The annual Report on form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2009 (“the Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and





(2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





Dated: April 15, 2010
By:
/s/ Kelly T. HickelKelly T. Hickel

Chief Executive Officer





Dated: April 15, 2010
By:
/s/ Jan E. ChasonJan E. Chason

Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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

TIMMY O’NEIL CHARITY,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-0444-GEB-GGH-P

vs.

THOMAS CARROLL, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has

filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General

Order No. 262.

On August 10, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and

which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

Case 2:04-cv-00444-GEB-GGH Document 19 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

1Although the recommendation clause itself set forth that

the motion should be “dismissed,” this was evidently a

typographical error, given that the findings clearly state that

each ground of defendants’ motion to dismiss should be denied.

2

Neither party has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 10,

2005, are adopted in full; and 

2. The motion to dismiss by defendants Woodford and

Lockyer, filed on December 22, 2004, is denied1 and defendants

are directed to file an answer within 30 days of the filed date

of this order.

Dated: September 28, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00444-GEB-GGH Document 19 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:04-cv-02428-MCE -DAD   Document 22    Filed 08/22/05   Page 1 of 9

Case 2:04-cv-02428-MCE -DAD   Document 22    Filed 08/22/05   Page 2 of 9

Case 2:04-cv-02428-MCE -DAD   Document 22    Filed 08/22/05   Page 3 of 9

Case 2:04-cv-02428-MCE -DAD   Document 22    Filed 08/22/05   Page 4 of 9

Case 2:04-cv-02428-MCE -DAD   Document 22    Filed 08/22/05   Page 5 of 9

Case 2:04-cv-02428-MCE -DAD   Document 22    Filed 08/22/05   Page 6 of 9

Case 2:04-cv-02428-MCE -DAD   Document 22    Filed 08/22/05   Page 7 of 9

Case 2:04-cv-02428-MCE -DAD   Document 22    Filed 08/22/05   Page 8 of 9

Case 2:04-cv-02428-MCE -DAD   Document 22    Filed 08/22/05   Page 9 of 9

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-25T00:00:51-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
## .^^^^]LL£^/
. PITTSBURG H INTERNATIONA L AIRPOR T Alleghen y Count y Airpor t Authorit y Landsid e Terminal , 4t h Floo r Mezz
. P.O
. Bo x 1237 0 Pittsburgh , P

A 15231-037 0 '^Tj^i'^

^ 412-472-350 0 

## mmfijfPittsburgh^c' w
May 18 , 201 0

Denni s DeVaxiey , Chie f U S Departmen t

o f Transportatio n , j Offic e o f th e Secretar y o f

Transportatio n |= ; Essentia l Air

Servic e Divisio n .== 5 Offic e o f Aviatio n Analysi s - - 12o o Ne w Jerse y Ave , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Mr
. DeVaney
. Th e Alleghen y Count y Airpor t Authority , manager s of Pittsburg hInternationa l Airport , encovirag e th e selectio n o f th e service s fix>mClarksbur g an dMorgantown , Wes t Virgini at o b e designate dthroug hKttsburg hInternationa l Airpor t a s th e chose n us e fo r Essentia l Ai r

Servic e Funding
. Wit hUmite dfedera l fundin g an dincrease dairlin e operatin g costs , th e Essentia l Air Servfc e (EAS ) progra mi s unde r financial pressure . Th e goa l o f th e EA S Progra mi s t o develo p commercial^'useful , self-supportin g ai r service
. On e of

th e goal s o f

th e Pennsylvani aAir

Servic e Committe e an dPittsburg hInternationa l Airpor t ha s bee n t o develo p asyste mwhic hwil l provid e smalle r communities ' singl e ticke t an dtransfe r acces s t o multipl e carrier s - legac y an dLC C - wit hasingl e screenin g an dbaggag e solutio n rathe r

tha n onl y th e singl e choic e connectio n offere db y contrac t carrier s throug hhubs
. Whil e EA S act s a s asafet y ne t t o carrier s servin g smal l communities , i t ca n als o ac t

a s asafet y ne t

t o smal l an dmid-size dairport s wiUin g t o develo p apla n fo r a n ai r servic e solution
. A mor e substantia l partnershi p betwee n airport s an d airline s ca n b e achieve da s som e o f th e initia l ris k

for carrier s willin g t o partne r i n pilo t programs , intende dt o reduc e dependenc e of EA S suppor t

i s mitigated , b y th e EA S safet y progra mitself
. Ou r suppor t i s fo r Gulfstream , aprove n carrie r tha t ha s agree dt o tak e o n thi s endeavo r wit hPIT an dwor k

wit hth e Pennsylvani aAi r Servic e Committe e unde r

Optio n 2
.Denni s DeVane y

Pag e Tw o May 18 , 201 0 Pittsburg hInternationa l Airpor t support s th e goal s o f carrier s wiUin g t o brin g traffi c bac k throug hPI T an dwil l partne r wit hthe mt o buil damulti-carrie r connectio n networ k solution
. We fee l tha t whe n th e travelin g publi c i s give n atrave l connectio n choice , i t wi U resul t i n economi c stimulatiot i resultin g i n anatura l marke t growt hfor smalle r communities
. Sincerely ,
Bradle y D
. Penrod , A.A.E
. Executiv e Director/CE O BDP/pa r
cc : Michae l Marti n U.S
. Departmen t

of Transportatio n Offic e o f Aviatio n Analysi s Essentia l Air

Servic e (EAS ) 8

5 Domesti c Analysis , X-5 3
No. 51011.

#### Protest 117538-K of Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The case was submitted on the official record including the collector’s letter. Said letter conceded that allowance should be granted for the case involved, which was exported from public store. The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
PROMISSORY NOTE – Jan-June 30, 2016
SALARY + Bonus + Vacation


 


$78,870.40Date: June 30, 2016


 


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 Doreen McMorran (“Lender”),
whose address is 356 Vincents Hollow Circle, Henderson, NV. 89052,
or such other place as the Lender may designate in writing to the undersigned, the principal sum of Seventy Eight Thousand
Eight Hundred and Seventy Dollars and Forty Cents ($78,870.40), 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 June 30, 2021.


 


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, and bonuses due
from January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016.


 


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 June 30, 2021. 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 One Million Nine Hundred and Seventy One Thousand Seven Hundred and
Sixty (1,971,760) 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.
No. 64168.

protest 59/25549 (New York).

#### Caribe Gloves, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Casey Joseph Cicero,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-2519 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

William Duncan,

Respondent.

-oOoPetitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel,

seeks a writ of habeas corpus. 

A judge “entertaining an application for a writ of habeas

corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing

the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,

unless it appears from the application that the applicant or 

person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

Petitioner may be entitled to relief.

Case 2:04-cv-02519-MCE -PAN Document 4 Filed 05/11/05 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

I therefore direct respondent to respond to petitioner’s

application within 60 days from the date of this order. See Rule

4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer shall be

accompanied by any and all transcripts or other documents

relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the

application. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases.

Petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served within 30

days of service of an answer. If the response to petitioner’s

application is a motion, petitioner’s opposition or statement of

non-opposition shall be filed and served within 30 days of

service of the motion, and respondents’ reply, if any, shall be

filed within 15 days thereafter. The Clerk of the Court shall

serve a copy of this order together with a copy of petitioner’s

April 27, 2005, amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Jo Graves, Attorney General for

the State of California.

Dated: May 10, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02519-MCE -PAN Document 4 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMAN GERALD DANIELS, III,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2337 FCD JFM P

vs.

DERRAL ADAMS,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

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

application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By order filed September

13, 2005, petitioner was granted a period of thirty days to file either a motion to stay these

proceedings pending exhaustion of state remedies or a request to proceed forthwith on the two

exhausted claims contained in his original petition. The thirty day period has passed and

petitioner has not responded in any way to the court’s order.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent is directed to file an answer to petitioner’s two exhausted claims

within forty-five days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02337-FCD-JFM Document 13 Filed 10/26/05 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

Cases. Respondent shall include with the answer any and all transcripts or other documents

relevant to the determination of the issues presented in the two exhausted claims. Rule 5, Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases; and

2. Petitioner’s traverse, if any, is due on or before thirty days from the date

respondent’s answer is filed. 

DATED: October 25, 2005.

12

dani2337.100am

Case 2:04-cv-02337-FCD-JFM Document 13 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 61881.

#### Bianchini, Ferier, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 295831-K and 296998-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise described on the invoice as “Gankor 90,” item No. 23429, is not in chief value of rayon or other synthetic textile, but is a woven fabric in chief value.of metal threads, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Colleen Leavitt, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2468 LKK CMK

vs.

Shasta County Board of Supervisors, et al.,

Defendants.

 / ORDER

A hearing on the Writ of Administrative Mandamus is set for November 8, 2005

at the United States District Court, 2986 Bechelli Lane, Redding, California. However, findings

and recommendations which recommend dismissing federal defendant Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX and remanding this action back to state court are currently pending before

the United States District Judge assigned to this case. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02468-LKK -CMK Document 49 Filed 11/07/05 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

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The hearing set for November 8, 2005 is VACATED; and 

2. The hearing on the Writ of Mandamus, if necessary, is set for January 17,

2006, at 10:00 a.m. in Redding before United States Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison

DATED: November 4, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02468-LKK -CMK Document 49 Filed 11/07/05 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 7,904a.

#### KNOX v. The DALLAS.

[Betts, Scr. Bk. 268.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

May 4, 1853.

Maritime Liens — Machinery— Useless Experiment.

[The fact that machinery is ordered for a vessel. as an experiment, and proves useless, does not destroy the lien of one who furnishes labor and materials in putting it in.]

[This was a libel by Edward Knox against the steamboat Dallas, her tackle, etc., for labor and materials furnished.]

BETTS, District Judge.

The steamboat belonged to this port, and was supplied with various apparatus connected with steam engines, and with a view to cany out patented inventions for the propulsion of vessels. The inventions, if practicable, did not prove useful, and the apparatus was abandoned. ’ The libellant was employed by an agent of the owners (being also patentee of the in-1 ventions, and part owner of the vessel) and by the master to furnish and put up the copper work, pipes, &c., connected with the apparatus and steam engine. After the pro.ieet of fitting out the ship with the proposed engine and apparatus was abandoned, the present claimant took the management of her, had all the works removed, and the ship equipped as a sailing vessel. He admits a part of the libellant’s demand to be payable by him, and has always been ready to satisfy it, but the libellant declined to accept part payment. The defence is that the equipment put upon the vessel in the first instance was merely an experiment by the patentee, at his own charge, and was no lien on the vessel, and utterly useless to her owners. A mechanic is only responsible for the sufficiency of his materials and work, when supplied conformably to orders. The law does not impose on him a guaranty that they shall answer the expectations or purposes of his employer. This is especially so in respect to new inventions, when mechanical skill is employed to carry out a supposed discovery, and the mechanic only acts pursuant to instructions. The lien given by the maritime law to material men and mechanics, for the equipment of vessels, is no way limited to any particular mode of fitment. Machinery supplied to aid their propulsion comes within the principle of the privilege, equally with spars and sails. In this case a valid lien on the vessel is proved, and, the demand being put in suit before she left port, it can be enforced in this court. The libellant was not bound to accept part payment of his demand. The decision will bo in his favor, for the whole amount of his *801materials and labor, 'with costs. A reference must be had to a commissioner to take the account.
**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 withthe Quarterly Report of Cano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, S. Jeffrey Johnson,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities andExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company, as of, and for, the periods presented in theReport.

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuantto Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 202 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as partof the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardlessof any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

 

May 8, 2008

 
|   | /s/ S. Jeffrey Johnson  |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | S. Jeffrey Johnson      |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit
23.2






CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
333-108215 and 333-148136, both on Form S-3, of our reports dated February 28,
2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedules of Kansas City Power & Light Company and subsidiaries (which
report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph
regarding the adoption of new accounting standards), and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Kansas City Power & Light Company and subsidiaries for the year
ended December 31, 2007.






/s/DELOITTE
& TOUCHE LLP






Kansas
City, Missouri


February
28, 2008
No. 52023.

#### Alexander & Baldwin, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 41355-K, etc. (Honolulu, etc.).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.