alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, David Ross Seaton, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Marshall Edwards, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) ) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within these entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared:  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: February 6, 2007 /s/ DAVID SEATON David R. Seaton    Chief Financial Officer  
38
No. 44115.

#### Protests 767552-G, etc., of Chas. H. Taylor et al. (Boston).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protests were dismissed.
#### Albert Draper, *Appellant, v.*Sarah Beadel and others, *Respondents.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Cullen, J.
No. 50552.

#### Protests 47247-K, etc., of American Customs Brokerage Co., Ltd., et al. (Honolulu).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nippon Co.*(32 C. C. P. A. 164, C. A. D. 303), which record was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith certain items of the merchandise were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1705 as kelp and other items were held dutiable""at 10 percent under paragraph 1540 as seaweeds, manufactured.
#### Henry De Stuckle, *Appellant, v.*The Tehuantepec Railway Company and others, *Respondents.*

— Judgment reversed, and judgment ordered for plaintiff, with leave to answer on the usual terms, with costs. Opinion by Davis, P. J.
Exhibit 32  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 Ableauctions.com, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Abdul Ladha, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 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, to the best of my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated March 27, 2007  /s/ Abdul Ladha Abdul Ladha Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Mars Global Digital Dune Database: MC-30

270 ̊ E 90 ̊ E

180 ̊ E

0 ̊ E

65° N

R.K. Hayward, L.K. Fenton, T.N. Titus, A. Colaprete, and P.R. Christensen

Open-File Report 2012-1259

Elevation (m)

 4800

-1840

Dune Field

In Original

Not in Original

Crater with Dune

0 450 900

Kilometers

South Polar Stereographic Projection

Mars 2000 Datum (3,3376,200 km sphere)

1:20,000,000

The map shows the location of dark dune fields and sand sheets on Mars between lat 65° 

and 90° S., covering about 75,000 km2

. Dune fields of similar size and quality to those 

included in the Equatorial and North Pole regions of MGD3

 cover about 60,000 km2 and 

are shown in red. More subtle sand features are shown in yellow. About 350 craters 

(outlined in black) contain dune fields
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Capital Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Chief Executive Officer 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 to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                           
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                     
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|             |  |                        
|------------ |  | -----------------------
|Date:        |  |                        
|May 15, 2006 |  | /s/ John P. Manning    
|             |  |                        
|             |  | John P. Manning        
|             |  | Chief Executive Officer
|             |  |                        
|             |  |                        



*  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8532 

To identify and address barriers to coverage of remote physiologic devices 

under State Medicaid programs to improve maternal and child health 

outcomes for pregnant and postpartum women. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2024 

Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida (for herself, Ms. SALAZAR, Ms. CASTOR of 

Florida, and Ms. LETLOW) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To identify and address barriers to coverage of remote physiologic devices under State Medicaid programs to improve 

maternal and child health outcomes for pregnant and 

postpartum women. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Connected Maternal 

5 Online Monitoring Act’’ or the ‘‘Connected MOM Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8532 IH

1 SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF REMOTE PHYSIOLOGIC MONITORING 

2 DEVICES AND IMPACT ON MATERNAL AND 

3 CHILD HEALTH OUTCOMES UNDER MED4 ICAID. 

5 (a) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 18 

6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec7 retary of Health and Human Services shall submit to Con8 gress a report containing information on authorities and 

9 State practices for covering remote physiological moni10 toring devices, including limitations and barriers to such 

11 coverage and the impact on maternal health outcomes, and 

12 to the extent appropriate, recommendations on how to ad13 dress such limitations or barriers related to coverage of 

14 remote physiologic devices under State Medicaid pro15 grams, including, but not limited to, pulse oximeters, blood 

16 pressure cuffs, scales, and blood glucose monitors, with 

17 the goal of improving maternal and child health outcomes 

18 for pregnant and postpartum women enrolled in State 

19 Medicaid programs. 

20 (b) STATE RESOURCES.—Not later than 6 months 

21 after the submission of the report required by subsection 

22 (a), the Secretary shall update resources for State Med23 icaid programs, such as State Medicaid telehealth toolkits, 

24 to be consistent with the recommendations provided in 

25 such report. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50471

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CRISTOBAL PEREZ BAUTISTA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:11-CR-705-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cristobal Perez Bautista, federal prisoner # 87161-280, was convicted by 

guilty plea of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 

grams of methamphetamine and possession of a firearm during a drug 

trafficking crime. The district court sentenced him to a total of 168 months of 

imprisonment and four years of supervised release. Over one year later, 

Bautista filed in district court a pro se motion for an extension of time in which 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 11, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-50471 Document: 00512468205 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2013
No. 13-50471

to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. His motion was not accompanied by a § 2255 

motion. The district court denied that motion for an extension of time.

In this court, Bautista has filed a motion seeking leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, a motion requesting correction of the record, 

and an appellate brief. The district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain 

Bautista’s motion for an extension of time to file a § 2255 motion. See United 

States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 163 (2d Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Bautista’s motion is 

AFFIRMED, and his motions for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and for 

correction of the record are DENIED.

2

 Case: 13-50471 Document: 00512468205 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2013
Before the Second Division,

July 30, 1941

No. 46225.

#### Petition 5887-R of M. Dwoskin & Sons (Savannah).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

This ease involved a discount of 10 percent allowed to the importers. The Government contends that the petitioners did not exercise due diligence in ascertaining the correct dutiable value of the merchandise, citing *Lowe*v. *United States*(15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 418, T. D. 42590) and *Mitsubishi*v. *United States*(19 C. C. P. A. 91, T. D. 45227). However, from the record and following *United States*v. *Fish,*268 U. S. 607, the court was satisfied that the entry of the merchandise at less than the final appraisement was without any intention, to defraud the revenue or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case. The petition was therefore granted.
Case No. 13,198.

#### SPAFFORD et al. v. WOODRUFF.

[2 McLean, 191.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Michigan.

Oct., 1840.

Pleading at Law — Puis Darrein Continuance —How Met — Motion to Set Aside.

1. A plea puis darrein continuance, properly verified and filed, within the rules of the court, will not be set aside on motion.

2. The facts alleged in the plea, show that it has been filed in good faith; and the allegations must be denied by a replication, or admitted by a demurrer.

3. The filing of this plea waives all prior issues.

[Cited in Harding v. Minear, 54 Cal. 505. Cited in brief in Lincoln v. Thrali, 26 Vt. 305.]

At law.

Mr. Goodwin, for plaintiffs.

Mr. Frazer, for defendant.

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

This is an action of assumpsit, brought against the defendant as the indorser of a note. ■ The general issue was pleaded; and, since the last continuance, a plea puis darrein continuance, which alleged that this action is brought against the defendant as indorser of a note, on which the plaintiffs, who are the holders, since the last continuance of this cause, obtained a judgment against the maker and the first indorser, and that they gave *851time to the defendant, ■which operates as a release to the defendant in this action. This plea is sworn -to, as the rule of the court requires. And, a motion is now made to set aside this plea, by plaintiffs’ attorney, on the ground that it is irregular, and a nullity.

Great certainty is required in pleas of this description. The plea may be in abatement, or in bar of the action, and the matter of defence must be specifically stated, and the time it arose. In these respects, the present plea is not defective, and it is verified by affidavit. Under such circumstances; it is said the court can not set the plea aside on motion, but are bound to receive it Brown, Abr. “Continuance,” pl. 5, 41; Jenk. Cent. 160; Prince v. Nicholson, 5 Taunt. 333; Lovell v. Eastaff, 3 Term R. 554. The interposition of this plea waives all prior issues; nor can the plaintiff, after-wards, proceed thereon. 1 Chit. Pl. (Ed. 1837) 697; 1 Salk. 168; 2 Strange, 1105; 5 Taunt. 333.

The matter set up in this plea, so far from appearing to be fraudulent or evasive, presents a serious question; and the facts should either be traversed by a replication, or admitted by a demurrer. The motion is, therefore, overruled.
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*James Devlin *v.*The Fire Commissioners of Brooklyn.

Order dismissing relator affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Dykman, J., and Barnard, P. J.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 60 (Thursday, March 29, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 14783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5759]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC07-72-000]


Brookfield Asset Management, Inc., Horizon Acquisition Company, 
Longview Fibre Company; Notice of Filing

March 23, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 22, 2007, Brookfield Asset Management, 
Inc., Horizon Acquisition Co., and Longview Fibre Company, 
(collectively, Applicants) tendered for filing under section 203(a)(2) 
of the Federal Power Act, that the Commission authorize a proposed 
transaction by which Brookfield, a holding company, will acquire a 
qualifying cogeneration facility through a merger with Longview Fibre 
Company, which is scheduled to close on April 20, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85c3c0d7c6caebe9ecebe0d6f0f5f5eaf7f1c5e3e0f7e6abe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f7b1b2a5b4b8999b9e9992a4828787988583b791928594d9909881">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 12, 2007.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5759 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
BARRY L. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
                        Certified Public Accountant


1582 TULITA DRIVE                           OFFICE (702) 361-8414
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89123                    FAX NO. (702) 896-0278


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


To Whom It May Concern:
                                                       January 12, 2000

      The  firm  of  Barry  L. Friedman, P.C., Certified  Public Accountant
consents   to  the inclusion of their report of January 11,2000,   on   the
Financial Statements of Tele Special.com, as of December 31, 1999,  in  any
filings   that are  necessary  now  or  in the near future with  the   U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.



Very truly yours,

/s/ Barry Friedman

Barry L. Friedman
Certified Public Accountant
EXHIBIT 13.2





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 Velti plc on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Wilson W. Cheung, Chief Financial Officer, hereby 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 requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

|   |                                                                                                                                                     
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:April 11, 2011By:/s/ Wilson W. CheungWilson W. CheungChief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 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.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

September 28, 2011

Memorandum

Subject: SIP Credit for Heavy

- Duty Diesel Engine Low

- NOx Software ("Chip Reflash")

From: Doris Lo, EPA Region 9, Air Division, Planning Office (AIR

- 2)

To: San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Docket No. EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2010

- 0516

The 2007 State Strategy, Appendix A, Emission Inventory Output Tables (p. 3) includes the following

description of “Reflash” SIP credit:

"Reflash. Heavy

- Duty Diesel engine Software Upgrade

ARB staff estimates that overall benefits of the software upgrade regulation plus related

actions provided approximately 38 tons per day of NOx emission reductions statewide

in 2007. This is within the range of the original staff estimate of 30 to 40 tons per day.

Reductions included in the adjustment beyond those required by the now invalidated

regulation come from voluntary upgrade programs, ongoing engine rebuilds, engines

upgrades by manu facturers exempt from the regulation, and interstate trucks."

Today, I called Ravi Ramalingam, ARB, to confirm that the SIP credit taken for “Reflash” only includes

reductions from already reflashed engines. Mr. Ramalingam said that prior to the invalida tion of the

software upgrade regulation, many of the engines had already been “reflashed” to meet the regulation.

ARB only took credit for the reductions from already reflashed engines , some of which were reflashed to

meet the regulation (before it was invalidated) and others that were reflashed for other reasons (e.g.,

voluntarily, during engine rebuilds, etc.).
#### JOHN E. RING, PETITIONER-PETITIONER, v. JUNE STRELECKI, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

*Mr. Carl E. Ring*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Arthur J. Bills, Mr. Richard Neioman*and *Mr. Alan D. Kirby*for the respondents.

May 2, 1967.

Denied.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00751

- CR

Michael Garza v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County , Texas Trial Cause No. S

- 04

- 3267

- CR

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this c ause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. December 10, 2015