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

                            SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION


I, Cary Martin, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of 649.COM INC.;

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 statement, 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 officers and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     (a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 the annual report is
          being prepared;

     (b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
          controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
          filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     (c)  presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation of the Evaluation Date;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
     on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
     committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
     equivalent function):

(a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weakness in internal controls; and

(b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
     controls; and

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual
report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


/s/ Cary Martin                                 Date: March 29, 2005
-------------------------------------
Cary Martin
Secretary / Treasurer / Director


<PAGE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00436-CV

North Forest Independent School District; Dr. Linda Robinson, Individually and as a

Member of the North Forest Independent School District Board of Trustees and

Dr. Silvia Brooks Williams, Individually and as a Member of the

North Forest Independent School District Board of Trustees, Appellants

v.

Michael L. Williams, State Commissioner of Education; and Lizette Gonzales Reynolds,

Chief Deputy Administrator and Deligee of Defendants Michael L. Williams,

State Commissioner of Education, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-13-001789, HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

We deny appellants’ “Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief Related to

Petition for Writ of Injunction” and dismiss as moot their motion to expedite consideration of that

emergency motion.

It is ordered on June 24, 2013.

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Rose
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 13 , 2015

NO. 03

- 13

- 00698

- CV

Appellant, Doreen Rubio// Cross

- Appellant, Jamie Walsh

v.
Appellees, Jamie Walsh; Emmet Walsh; Ellen Thornton, Individually; Ellen Thornton, Trus tee; and Ellen Thornton, Trustee// Cross

- Appellee, Doreen Rubio

APPEAL FROM 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BO URLAND, AND SHANNON * AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SHANNON

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the district court on July 25, 2013. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the district court’s judgment . Therefor e, the C ourt affirms the district court’s judgment

. The

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.

* Before Bob E. Shannon, Chief Justice (retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitti ng by assignment. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.003(b).
No. 55300.

#### Van Raalte Co. *v.*United States,

protests 547441-G and 723051-G (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
FILED

January 27, 1999

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

RAYMOND O. HAMPTON, )

)

Plaintiff/Appellant, )

) Appeal No.

) 01-A-01-9712-CH-00721

VS. )

) Davidson Chancery

) No. 97-2692-I

TENNESSEE TRUCK SALES, INC. )

and DONALD A. TOMLINSON, )

)

Defendants/Appellees. )

ORDER ON PETITION TO REHEAR

The appellees have filed a Petition to Rehear asserting that the court

overlooked the record from the former case in deciding that the record did not contain

evidence on which a judgment of res judicata (or collateral estoppel) could be based.

Attached to the petition are copies of the papers filed in the chancery court in the

former case with a document called “Joint Notice of Filing” addressed to the Court of

Appeals but filed in the chancery court on September 16, 1998. There is no

certification by the Clerk and Master and this court’s docket does not indicate that the

filing was ever forwarded to this court. We do find in this record, however, a motion

to consolidate the two records and an order reserving judgment on that motion

because the time for filing a Rule 11 application to the Supreme Court had not

expired. The order further states that the reservation was without prejudice to the

right of the parties to obtain a duplicate record from the trial court for filing in this

appeal. Apparently the filing in the chancery court on September 16, 1998 was an

effort on the part of the parties to take advantage of this court’s suggestion, but the

record from the chancery court was never filed in this court.

All of that being said, we have examined the record furnished with the
2

Petition to Rehear and it confirms our initial conclusion that the breach of a bailment

contract was not part of the prior action. The appellees assert that res judicata

applies to all issues that could have been raised in the former action, but the truck

was still in the possession of the defendants when the agreed order was entered

terminating that action. The alleged breach of the bailment contract did not occur until

the former action had been terminated. We do not see how the appellees can assert

that the issues involving a breach of the bailment relationship could have been raised

in that action.

The appellant did seek Rule 60 relief from the final judgment in the

former case so that he could assert a claim essentially the same as the one raised in

this case. The chancellor denied that relief on the ground of the appellant’s laches,

and that judgment was affirmed by this court. But as we pointed out in the original

opinion that judgment was on the Rule 60 motion, not on the merits of the bailment

claim. Therefore, it is ordered that the Petition to Rehear be overruled. 

_______________________________________

BEN H. CANTRELL, PRESIDING JUDGE, M.S.

______________________________________

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE

______________________________________

WILLIAM B. CAIN, JUDGE
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

 The answer filed on January 31, 2006 thus is deemed timely.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD HODGES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2087 MCE KJM P 

vs.

DAVID RUNNELS,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Respondent has filed a motion for leave to file a late answer. Good cause

appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent’s March 3, 2006 request for leave to file

a late answer is granted.1

DATED: March 10, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/mp

hodg2087.111(2)

Case 2:04-cv-02087-MCE -KJM Document 22 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 1
EX-32.1



Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



INFe- Human Resources, Inc. 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 amended quarterly report of INFe- Human Resources, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arthur Viola, Chief Executive Officer of INFe-Human Resources, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 INFe-Human Resources, Inc.



/s/    ARTHUR VIOLA

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

Arthur Viola



Chief Executive Officer

Sole Director

and Chief Financial Officer



July 06, 2007
November 27, 1953

A. R. D. 34.

#### *West End Auto Wrecking Co., Inc.*v. *United States.*

REHEARING MOTION DENIED

A. R. D. 31. Motion by appellant.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

######  Office of the Secretary 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Andrea Burckman, Director, Office of Executive Resources and Personnel Security, Room C5508, U.S. Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, telephone: (202) 693-7628. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of March, 2007. 

Elaine L. Chao, 

Secretary of Labor.

 [FR Doc. E7-4839 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-23-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 13, 2014

No. 04

- 14

- 00072

- CV

EX PARTE Guadalupe TORRES

Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On May 6, 2014, this court received relator’s supplemental petition for writ of habeas

corpus originally filed in the trial court. The court has considered relator’s petition and is of the

opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief soug ht. Accordingly, relator’s supplemental

petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

It is so ORDERED on May 13 th , 2014.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHE REOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 13 th day of May, 2014

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008EM504721, styled In the Interest of S.I.R., A Child , pending in the

45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Jim Rausch presiding.
No. 56011.

protest 167791-K (Philadelphia).

#### Wessels Kulenkampff & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

'Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-3727

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Albert Kelly Price, also known as Anthony Sutton

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Central

 ____________

Submitted: August 17, 2021

Filed: August 23, 2021 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Albert Price appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded

guilty to sex trafficking children. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and

1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.
has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging his

sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that district court correctly calculated Price’s

offense level. See United States v. Davenport, 910 F.3d 1076, 1081-82 (8th Cir.

2018) (factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and application of Guidelines are

reviewed de novo; application of sentencing enhancements must be supported by

preponderance of evidence). Specifically, the record supported the enhancements for

undue influence, see U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B); for physical restraint, see U.S.S.G.

§ 3A1.3; and for being a repeat sex offender, see U.S.S.G. §4B1.5(b)(1). 

We also conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively

unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See United States v.

Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentences are reviewed for

substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse of discretion standard; abuse of

discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight

to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing

appropriate factors). Further, the court imposed a sentence below the Guidelines

range. See United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119, 1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting

that when district court has varied below Guidelines range, it is “nearly

inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
**Exhibit31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 200218 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

I, Kevin W. Mooney,certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of Worldspan, L.P.;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)             designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

b)            evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

c)             disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

a)             all significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b)            any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: August 9, 2006 |   |                    |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                 |   | /s/ Kevin W. Mooney     |
|                 |   | Kevin W. Mooney         |
|                 |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|                 |   | Worldspan, L.P.         |

 

----
No. 46787.

#### Protests 983240-G, etc., of Quong Lee & Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Oy Wo Tong*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) bak hop, lotus nuts (hoi shin lien, hoi pak lin), suit sit, wai san (stick), sar sum (uncut), lo hon qua, yuen yuk, and mok qua were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 as crude drugs, and other commodities were held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 34 as drugs, advanced. Apricot kernels were held *434dutiable at 3 cents per pound under paragraph 762, Tariff Act of 1930, or paragraph 760, Tariff Act of 1922, on the authority of Abstract 34104. Protests sustained in part.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00023-CR

JAMES FRANKLIN KIRBY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court

Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 25159

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

James Franklin Kirby, appellant, has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. The motion 

was signed by both Kirby and his counsel in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). As authorized by Rule 42.2(a), we grant the 

motion.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: July 30, 2014

Date Decided: July 31, 2014

Do Not Publish
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ ) JANE DOE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11-1755 (ABJ) ) DE AMIGOS, LLC ) d/b/a Spot Lounge, et al. , ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________)

ORDER On June 10, 2014, Magistrate Judge Alan Kay issued a Report and Recommendation [Dkt. # 98] with respect to plaintiff ’s motion for default judgment as to defendant Mazin Saleh [Dkt. # 90]. The report advised the parties “ that under the provisions of Local Rule 72.3(b) of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, any party who objects to the Report and Recommendation must file a written objection th ereto with the Clerk of this Court within 14 days of the party ’ s receipt of this Report and Recommendation. ” June 10, 2014 Report & Recommendation. To date, no ob jections have been filed. It is therefore ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. # 98] is ADOPTED in its entirety; it is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff ’ s motion for default judgment [Dkt. # 90] is granted in part and denied in part; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that default judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff against defendant Saleh in the following amounts:

x $5,607.70 for past medical damages;2 x $75,000 for future medical damages;

x $250,000 for pain and suffering; and

x $300,000 in punitive damages.

AMY BERMAN JACKSON United States District Judge DATE: July 1, 2014
#### In the Matter of Commissioner of Social Services, on Behalf of Corrine B., a Child Alleged to be Neglected, Respondent, v Margaret D., Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 566]

—In a child protective proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from so much of an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated September 13, 1993, as, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated April 12, 1993, finding Corrine B. to be a neglected child, and upon the denial of her motion to vacate the fact-finding order and reopen the fact-finding hearing, released the child to the custody of her father. The appeal from the order of disposition brings up for review the fact-finding order dated April 12, 1993.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, the testimony adduced at the hearing was sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Corrine B. was neglected by the appellant, by virtue of the appellant’s abuse of alcohol, which placed the physical, mental, and emotional condition of her child in imminent danger of becoming impaired *(see,*Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; § 1046 [a] [iii]; *Matter of William T.,*185 AD2d 413; *Matter of George C.,*122 AD2d 943; *Matter of Toni WW.,*52 AD2d 108).

In addition, we discern no error in the court’s denial of the appellant’s motion to vacate the fact-finding order and re-open the fact-finding hearing, premised on the ground that she was absent from the last day of the hearing. In light of the appellant’s history of prior absences, her failure to raise this issue for more than three months, and her unsubstantiated claim that the date slip she received misstated the adjourned hearing date, the court correctly concluded that the appellant "willfully refused to appear at the hearing” (Family Ct Act § 1042; *Matter of Male J.,*214 AD2d 417; *Matter of Jamel H.,*187 AD2d 513).

The appellant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, without merit. Joy, J. P., Hart, Goldstein and Florio, JJ.