alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-31.2
   RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF JOHN FLEMING

           RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION

I, Arthur DeJoya, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of GameZnFlix,
Inc.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;

4.  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) [omitted pursuant to extended compliance period] for
the small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)  [omitted pursuant to extended compliance period]

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
my 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

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter
(the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5.  I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's
auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small
business issuer'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 small
business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Dated: March 30, 2005                  /s/ Arthur DeJoya
                                       Arthur DeJoya,
                                       Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Maria L. Clark.

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6739

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH MICHAEL GUARASCIO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:09-cr-00109-D-1)

Submitted: September 26, 2019 Decided: October 1, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Michael Guarascio, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Michael Guarascio appeals the district court’s orders denying Guarascio’s 

motion for the return of property seized during his federal prosecution and denying 

Guarascio’s motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Guarascio, No. 7:09-cr-00109-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 6, 2018, Feb. 1, 2019, filed 

May 7, 2019 & entered May 8, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, *Plaintiff, v.*The Fire Association of Philadelphia, *Defendant.*

— Judgment for defendant, with costs. Opinion by Boardman, J., and by - Learned, P. J., dissenting.
No. 54152.

#### T. M. Duche & Sons, Inc., et al. v. United States,

protests 815452-G, etc. (Boston).

*406Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### J. H. Pope, M. M. Andrews, Andrew & Mahon, Lacey Mahon, W. T. McCaffery and Johnson & McIlvaine v. The State of Florida, The Florida National Bank of Jacksonville, a corporation; The Barnett National Bank of Jacksonville, a corporation; The Atlantic National Bank of Jacksonville, a corporation; L. G. Hitchcolk, as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Duval County, Duval County, a political Subdivision of the State; and R. Fleming Bowden, as Tax Collector of Duval County.

178 So. 111.

Division B.

Opinion Filed January 7, 1938.

*DeHoff & DeHoff*and *Mickler & Mickler,*for Appellants ;

*Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, and *H. E. Carter,*Assistant Attorney General, for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

Praecipe for dismissal of this appeal was filed by the appellants two days before the date set for oral argument. The case was argued by the Attorney General only. A careful consideration of the questions involved convinces us that no useful purpose could be served by denying the motion to dismiss the appeal and attempting to answer the questions raised by the State. Indeed it appears that this is now practically a moot case.

*580Appeal dismissed on appellants’ motion, the costs to be assessed against the appellants.

Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment. •
- # -



EXHIBIT 12.3





- # -



June 25, 2003







United States Securities and Exchange Commission







Dear Sirs/Mesdames:



Re:

Rio Narcea Gold Mines, Ltd.

Form 20-F Annual Report (2002)

Consent of Expert



The undersigned, Metallurgical Design and Management (Pty) Ltd., hereby states as follows:



Our firm was engaged to prepare the Technical Report entitled Summary  Feasibility Study Aguablanca Project dated July 2002 (the Report) for Rio Narcea Gold Mines, Ltd. (the Company), portions of which are summarized in Item 4. Information on the Company -- D.  Property, Plant and Equipment  Base Metal Development  Project  Aguablanca Project  Bankable Feasibility Study in the Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F for year ended December 31, 2002 (this Annual Report), to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.



We hereby consent to a reference to our firm as having reviewed the matters set forth in Item 4. Information on the Company  A. Recent Developments -- Off-take Agreement Signed for Aguablanca Project in this Annual Report, and we further consent to the incorporation in this Annual Report of the summary information concerning the Report, including the reference to our firm included with such information.



Sincerely,





/s/ D. Dodd



DAVID DODD

Technical Director

Metallurgical Design and Management (Pty) Ltd.



- # -
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies to such officers knowledge that:

(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: March 16, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ George G. Beasley  
|                      |  |  |  | George G. Beasley      
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference
into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
6974

#### ODOM v. NEWTON.

Referee — Exceptions.'—The Circuit Court may, in its discretion, excuse default in filing exceptions to referee’s report for inadvertence or mistake under Section 195, of Code, and permit exceptions thereto to be filed after expiration of ten days from notice of filing and after time agreed upon by attorneys for filing.

Before Dantzrer, J., Marlboro, January, 1908.

Affirmed.

*77Action by Sarius M. Odom, executor of Lucy Ellen Odom, against R. L. Newton and T. M. Newton, executors of Younger S. Newton and Mary Frances Terry. From order permitting plaintiff to file exceptions to referee’s report out of time, defendants appeal.

*Messrs. Newton & Owens,*for appellant,

cite: 50 S. C., 403; 53 S. C., 231; 36 S. C., 578; 71 S. C., 512.

*Messrs. Livingston & Muller,*contra,

cite: 71 S. C., 512, 76 S. C., 566.

July 25, 1908.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Jones.

The referee filed his report in this case on January 19, 1907, and notice of said filing was served by the attorneys for defendants upon plaintiff’s attorney on June 29, 1907. On July 1, 1907, an agreement was made between counsel, extending the time for serving exceptions by either side until August 1, '1907. There was no attempt made to serve exceptions until eighth November, 1907, when plaintiff’s counsel delivered to defendants’ counsel exceptions to said report, which the latter refused to receive because not filed in time. On the day following defendants’ counsel moved to confirm the referee’s report, and plaintiff’s counsel moved to file and serve exceptions thereto on the ground of mistake, inadvertence and excusable neglect, stating as matter of excuse that it had not been the rule of practice of the members of the Marlboro bar to hold each other up to time or strict practice. The only question made by defendant’s counsel was as to the power of the Court to permit exceptions to the referee’s report after the expiration of the ten days from notice of filing. Judge Dantzler held that he had the power, and upon consideration granted leave to plaintiff’s counsel to file exceptions within ten days• from jmtten notice of the filing of his order. From this order defendants appeal, contending *78that the Court had no power to grant the order, and that, if he did, he abused his discretion in granting the order on the showing made.

That the Court has discretionary power under section 195 of the Code of Procedure to permit filing of exceptions to referee’s report after the expiration of ten days from notice of filing has been determined in *Brown*v. *Rogers,*71 S. C., 512, 51 S. E., 257, and in *Exchange Bank*v. *McMillan,*76 S. C., 566, 57 S. E., 630. The plaintiff’s counsel, no doubt, satisfied the Circuit Judge that his neglect to file exceptions in time was excusable under the circumstances, and we cannot say the Court abused its discretion in granting the order.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8664 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Under Secretary 

for Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of Homeland Security 

to conduct an annual audit of the information systems and bulk data 

of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis of the Department, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2024 

Ms. LEE of Florida (for herself and Mr. PFLUGER) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct 

the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis of 

the Department of Homeland Security to conduct an 

annual audit of the information systems and bulk data 

of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis of the Department, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘DHS Intelligence and 

5 Analysis Oversight and Transparency Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8664 IH

1 SEC. 2. ANNUAL AUDIT OF DHS OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE 

2 AND ANALYSIS INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND 

3 BULK DATA. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle A of title II of the Home5 land Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 121 et seq.) is amend6 ed by adding at the end the following new section: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 210H. ANNUAL AUDIT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS 

8 AND BULK DATA. 

9 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Under Secretary for Intel10 ligence and Analysis of the Department shall conduct an 

11 annual audit of the information systems and bulk data of 

12 the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, which shall be con13 sistent with the intelligence oversight guidelines of the Of14 fice of Intelligence and Analysis. 

15 ‘‘(b) REPORT.—Not later than 30 days after the con16 clusion of the audit under subsection (a), the Under Sec17 retary for Intelligence and Analysis of the Department 

18 shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees 

19 the findings and results of such audit. 

20 ‘‘(c) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘appro21 priate congressional committees’ means the Committee on 

22 Homeland Security and the Permanent Select Committee 

23 on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the 

24 Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Af25 fairs and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Sen26 ate.’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8664 IH

1 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

2 in section 1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is 

3 amended by inserting after the item relating to section 

4 210G the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 210H. Annual audit of information systems and bulk data.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
No. 46795.

#### Protest 68184-K of L. Oppleman, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the machines in question are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Oppleman*v. *United States*(2 Cust. Ct. 79, C. D. 91) the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 372 was sustained.
1-900 JACKPOT, INC. (FORMERLY PULTRONEX CORPORATION)
                                CERTIFICATION OF
                           PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Brian  Fisher,  solely for the purpose of  complying  with 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
hereby  certify  that to my  knowledge  Annual  Report  of 1-900  Jackpot,  Inc.
(formerly  Pultronex  Corporation)  on Form 10-KSB for the year ended August 31,
2005 ("Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that  information  contained in such
Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of 1-900 Jackpot, Inc. (formerly Pultronex Corporation).



DATE:  NOVEMBER 22, 2005

/S/ BRIAN FISHER
------------------------
    BRIAN FISHER
PRINCIPAL 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
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.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 on Form 10-K of Medley Capital Corporation, (the “Company”) for the annual period ended September 30, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Brook Taube and Richard T. Allorto, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, 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 our knowledge:





|    |                                                                                                                      
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.




Dated: December 7, 2017





By/s/ Brook TaubeBrook TaubeChief Executive Officer


By/s/ Richard T. Allorto, Jr.Richard T. Allorto, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
#### S. Clark Lewis, *Appellant, v.*White’s Bank of Buffalo, *Respondent.*

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, to be paid by the assignee out of the fund.
#### Commonwealth ex rel. Rakus, Appellant, *v.*Maroney.

Submitted January 23, 1969.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*588
      *John E. O’Connor,*for appellant.

*Jerry B. Chariton,*Assistant District Attorney, *Charles D. Lemmond, Jr.,*First Assistant District Attorney, and *Blythe H. Evans, Jr.,*District Attorney, for appellee.

October 9, 1969:

Opinion

Pee Cueiam,

The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County is vacated, and the record is remanded to that court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether appellant’s guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily made. See *Commonwealth v. Patterson,*432 Pa. 76, 247 A. 2d 218 (1968).

Dissenting Opinion by

Me. Chief Justice Bell:

The record shows that no evidentiary hearing was necessary. This sentence of murder was imposed in 1949 and the record shows that defendant’s two experienced counsel stated that they had investigated the ease thoroughly, interviewed every witness they could, and felt that defendant’s change of plea from not guilty to guilty was in his best interest. To grant an evidentiary hearing in 1969—on defendant’s allegation that his plea was involuntary and not knowingly made, even when his present Court-appointed counsel could not write a brief to support this allegation—is unnecessary, extremely unwise and extremely unfair to the law-abiding people of Pennsylvania. For these reasons, I dissent.
#### Forest G. Weeks, App’lt, *v.*John E. Waller, Resp’t.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of Vann, J., delivered at special term.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

BEN JACKSON, 

Appellant, 

v.

Case No. 5D22-0148 

LT Case No. 21-SC-52115-O 

BMI SMART PARKING, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed June 14, 2022

Appeal from the County Court

for Orange County, 

Elizabeth Starr, Judge.

Ben Jackson, Kissimmee, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, HARRIS and SASSO, JJ., concur.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOHN EDWIN NAIL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D18-2216 and 4D18-2338

[September 12, 2019]

Consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial 

Circuit, Martin County; Lawrence M. Mirman, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 

16000809CFAXMX and 16001331CFAXMX.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gary Lee Caldwell, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alexandra A. 

Folley, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Affirmed. 

GROSS, TAYLOR and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
(Reap. Dec. 9282)

#### J. B. Bernard & Company, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 389, etc.

(Decided December 29, 1958)

*Wallace & Schwartz*(Barnes, *Richardson & Colburn*of counsel) for the plaintiff. *George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States that the market value or the price at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated on Schedule *437A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States was the appraised value less the amount added to meet advances by the appraiser in similar cases, and that there was no higher foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the issue is the same as in United States v. Nelson Bead Company, 42 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 175, C. A. D. 590, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these appeals for reappraisement are submitted on this stipulation.

In tbe cited case, our appellate court beld tbat a buying commission paid to a commissionaire for services rendered in connection with the purchase, packing, and shipping of the merchandise was not part of statutory export value.

On the stipulated facts, as hereinabove set forth, and following the cited authority on the law, I find that the proper basis for ap-praisement of the merchandise covered by these appeals for reap-praisement is export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value for the merchandise is in each instance the appraised value, less the amount added to meet advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.