alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-31.2 CERTIFICATION OF CFO

EXHIBIT 31.2

 

1. Chief Financial Officer

CERTIFICATION 

 

I, George J. Malasek, Chief Financial Officer of ViaStar Holdings, Inc. certify that:
1. 
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ViaStar Holdings, Inc.; 
2. 
Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report; 
3. 
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report; 
4. 
The registrant's other certifying officer 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)) {omitted in accordance with section III.E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986] for the registrant and we 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 quarterly report is being prepared; 
b) 
[omitted in accordance with section III.E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986] 
c)
 
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and 
d)
 
disclosed in this quarterly 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 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.    
Dated: November 24, 2003
By:
 
/s/ GEORGE J. MALASEK 
 
 **George J. Malasek**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL SCOTT FILAROSKI,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 393 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
No. 49695.

#### Protest 95256-K of August F. Stauff (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel sole crepe rubber similar to that the subject 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.
# EUR-Lex - 52007BP0114(01) - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007BP0114(01)

**1. European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on the discharge for implementation of the budget of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2005 (C6-0387/2006 - 2006/2154(DEC)) **

*
Official Journal 074 E , 20/03/2008 P. 0190 - 0191 *

1.

European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on the discharge for implementation of the budget of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2005 (C6-0387/2006 — 2006/2154(DEC))

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2005 [1],

- having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the final annual accounts of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for the financial year 2005, together with the Foundation's replies [2],

- having regard to the Council's recommendation of 27 February 2007 (5711/2007 — C6-0080/2007),

- having regard to the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 276 thereof,

- having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities [3], and in particular Article 185 thereof,

- having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1365/75 of 26 May 1975 on the creation of a European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions [4], and in particular Article 16 thereof,

- having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 [5], and in particular Article 94 thereof,

- having regard to Rule 71 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the Report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A6-0098/2007),

1. Grants the executive director of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions discharge for the implementation of the Foundation's budget for the financial year 2005;

2. Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

3. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the resolution that forms an integral part of it to the executive director of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

[1] OJ C 266, 31.10.2006, p. 37.

[2] OJ C 312, 19.12.2006, p. 80.

[3] OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 (OJ L 390, 30.12.2006, p. 1).

[4] OJ L 139, 30.5.1975, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1111/2005 (OJ L 184, 15.7.2005, p. 1).

[5] OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72.

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

The undersigned, Doron Uziel, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and Director of Energtek Inc. (the
"Company"), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes
of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and information contained in that Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: November 13, 2006


/s/ Doron Uziel
---------------------
Doron Uziel
President, Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting
Officer, and Director
(Principal Executive, Financial, and
Accounting 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.



                                       21
No. 59606.

protests 211439-K, etc. (New York).

#### Rorstrand, Inc. *v.*United States,

*360Opinion by

*Johnson, J.*

*In*accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**EXHIBIT      12**

**RATIO      OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

| (in                thousands, except ratio)                            |   | **For the fiscal years ended June 30,** |    |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|
|                                                                   |   | **2008**                                                              |    | **2007** |   | **2006** |   | **2005** |   | **2004** |   |
| Consolidated                pre-tax income from continuing operations  |   | $                                                                     | 219,989 |   | $ | 185,652 |   | $ | 146,175 |   | $ | 101,351 |   | $ | 55,273 |   |
| Interest                portion of rental expense                      |   |                                                                  | 7,552   |   |   | 6,167 |   |   | 5,373 |   |   | 5,089 |   |   | 4,375 |   |
| Minority                interest                                       |   |                                                                  | ─ |   |   | ─ |   |   | ─ |   |   | ─ |   |   | 843 |   |
|                                                                   |   |                                                                  |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Earnings                                                               |   | $                                                                     | 227,541 |   | $ | 191,819 |   | $ | 151,548 |   | $ | 106,440 |   | $ | 60,491 |   |
|                                                                   |   |                                                                  |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed                charges, being interest portion of rental expense |   | $                                                                     | 7,552   |   | $ | 6,167 |   | $ | 5,373 |   | $ | 5,089 |   | $ | 4,375 |   |
|                                                                   |   |                                                                  |    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio                of earnings to fixed charges                      |   |                                                                  | 30.1    |   |   | 31.1 |   |   | 28.2 |   |   | 20.9 |   |   | 13.8 |   |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7806

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

STACEY LAVOIS WHITE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-91-58-G, CA-96-234-2)

Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacey Lavois White, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. White, No. CR-91-58-G; CA-96-234-2

(M.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
No. 51474.

#### Protests 106908-K, etc., of T. D. Downing Co. et al. (Boston, etc.).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# Appendix 3-4
No. 50110.

#### Protests 108293-K, etc., of Eastern Grocery Co. et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2089

___________

Kenneth Bell; Cleophus Mack, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

State of Missouri, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 31, 2007

 Filed: November 5, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri prisoners Kenneth Bell and Cleophus Mack appeal the district court’s1

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) preservice dismissal of their complaint. Upon de novo review,

Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (standard of

review), we conclude dismissal was proper because the five-year limitations period

had expired. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120(4); Wallace v. Kato, 127 S. Ct. 1091, 1094

(2007) (holding § 1983 actions are characterized as personal-injury actions for

purposes of determining which state statute of limitations to apply). However, we
-2-

modify the judgment to be with prejudice, see Botten v. Shorma, 440 F.3d 979, 980-

81 (8th Cir. 2006) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice on

statute of limitations grounds), and we affirm the judgment as modified. See 8th Cir.

R. 47B.

______________________________
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHN Q. THOMAS, Airman Basic, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

14 USCMA 223, 34 CMR 3

No. 17,067

October 18, 1963

*Colonel Daniel E. Henderson, Jr.,*and *Major Hugh J. Dolan*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Emanuel Lewis*and *Captain Donald W. Brewer*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

Among other offenses presented to a special court-martial, the accused pleaded guilty to and was found guilty of wrongful appropriation- of a parka and a pair of boots from a fellow airman, in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 921. In the course of the sentence procedure, it was indicated that the accused had been restricted. He broke restriction and was arrested by the Air Police who brought him to the Air Police office. However, he broke the arrest to return to his room. He then wanted to go out to eat. Since his keys were in possession of the Air Police, he went to the room of “his friend” and “borrowed” the parka and boots “just for the express purpose of going to eat.” He left a signed note reading: “Say Wheeler, I am borrowing your parka, boots and cap. Will bring it back later. Thanks.” While in the dining hall, the accused was again apprehended.

These circumstances tend strongly to negate the criminal intent required for a violation of Article 121. United States v Hayes, 8 USCMA 627, 25 CMR 131. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the president of the special court-martial “to inquire into the providence of the plea of guilty . . . and, if accused did not disavow” this account of the transaction to set it aside. United States v Caid, 13 USCMA 348, 351, 32 CMR 348.

The decision of the board of review is reversed as to Charge III and its specification and the sentence. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Air *224Force for submission to the board of review. In its discretion the board of review may dismiss Charge III and its specification and reassess the sentence on the basis of the remaining findings of guilty or order a rehearing on that charge and the sentence.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4640 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4640

       To strengthen trafficking victim assistance grant funding.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 9, 2024

 Mr. Ossoff (for himself and Mrs. Blackburn) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To strengthen trafficking victim assistance grant funding.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Supporting Victims of Human 
Trafficking Act''.

SEC. 2. GRANTS TO ASSIST VICTIMS OF A SEVERE FORM OF TRAFFICKING.

    Section 107(b)(2) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 
(22 U.S.C. 7105(b)(2)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``human'' and 
        inserting ``a severe form of'';
            (2) in subparagraph (B)--
                    (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking 
                ``shall'' and insert ``may'';
                    (B) in clause (i), by striking ``three percent'' 
                and inserting `` up to 7 percent'';
                    (C) in clause (ii)--
                            (i) by striking ``5 percent'' and inserting 
                        ``up to 10 percent''; and
                            (ii) by inserting ``and strengthening 
                        program administration and budgeting'' after 
                        ``activities''; and
                    (D) in clause (iii), by striking ``one percent'' 
                and inserting ``up to 1 percent'';
            (3) in subparagraph (C), strike ``75 percent'' and insert 
        ``95 percent''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(E) Discrimination prohibited.--No person in the 
                United States may, on the basis of actual or perceived 
                race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender 
                identity, sexual orientation, or disability, be 
                excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, 
                subjected to discrimination under, or denied employment 
                in connection with, any program or activity funded in 
                whole or in part with funds made available under this 
                paragraph.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 47390.

#### Protests 896559-G, etc., of Friedlaender & Co., Inc.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TYRONE GRAVES,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 618 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
No. 46189.

#### Protest 7332-K of Greenberg & Josefsberg (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

No testimony was introduced but the entry and invoice papers were received in evidence, an examination of which showed that the collector failed to designate and the appraiser did not examine 1 out of 10 packages as required by law. *Carey*v. *United States*(16 Ct. Cust. Appls. 382, T. D. 43118) cited. Failure to so designate and examine the packages, the court has held, renders the appraisement void not only as to the regular duties but also insofar as the dumping duties are concerned. *Tower*v. *United States*(21 C. C. P. A. 417, T. D. 46943) cited. The Government attorney moved to dismiss the protest on the ground that the importer had had his- day in court in the reappraisement proceeding, and that the protest does not state or set forth any injury to the importers. Since it has been held that the issue of the validity of appraisement, whether under the tariff act or antidumping act, can be raised in either a reappraisement proceeding or a suit brought by way of protest, the motion was denied, citing *United States*v. *Central Vermont Railway*(17 C. C. P. A. 166, T. D. 43474), *United States*v. *Porto Rico Coal Co.*(id. 288, T. D. 43716), *United States*v. *Gilson*(20 id. 117, T. D. 45753), and *Vulcan Match Co.*v. *United States*(C. D. 398). As the record disclosed that neither the designation by the collector nor the examination by the appraiser was in accordance with the terms of the statute, and there being no evidence of a special regulation authorizing the designation of less than the statutory number of packages for examination, the court held that the appraisement was illegal and void and that the regular duty should be assessed on the entered value. The appraisement being void, no legal assessment of dumping duties can be made. *United States*v. *Tower*(24 C. C. P. A. 456, T. D. 48912) and *United States*v. *Davis*(20 C. C. P. A. 305, T. D. 46087) cited.
No. 51012.

#### Protest 38906-K of Joseph Horne Co. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon *257on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protest was sustained to this extent.
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 Annual Report of Basset Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report), I, Cosmo Palmieri, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  March 11, 2008 /s/Cosmo Palmieri     President