alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.2CertificationI, Luis Sas, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Petrobras Energía Participaciones,S.A.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The company’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)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the company, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual reportthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditorsand the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: May 7, 2007         /s/ Luis Sas     Luis Sas  Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2





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 Asia Carbon Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Xiaolong Zhou, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.





/s/Xiaolong Zhou

Date: March 31, 2011Xiaolong ZhouChief Financial Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 7340

JOHN W. MCKENZIE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. R. WOLFE, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Wheeling

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 5:22

- cv - 00123

- JPB )

Submitted : August 29 , 2023 Decided: August 31, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN , Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. John W. McKenzie, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7340 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: John W. McKenzi e seeks to appeal the district court’s order deny ing relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition

. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a civil case, parties are accorded 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1 )(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). However, if a party moves for an extension of time to appeal within 30 days after expiration of the origin al appeal period and demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause, a district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A); Washington v. Bumgarner , 882 F.2d 899, 900

- 01 (4th Cir. 1989). The district court may also reo pen the time to file an appeal if the moving party did not receive notice of the entry of the order sought to be appealed within 21 days after entry , the motion is filed within the earlier of either 180 days after the order is entered or 14 days after the moving party receives notice under Fed. R. App. P. 7 7 (d) of the entry , and n o party would be prejudiced

. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)( 6 )

. The district court entered its order on September 1, 2022 , and McKenzie did not file his notice of appeal until November 18, 2022

. * However, b ecause McKenzie ’s notice of appeal included a manifest request for additional time to appeal and stated that he did not receive timely notice of the entry of the district court’s order , we construe it as a request

* McKenzie’s notice of appeal did not contain any indication of the date it was mailed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) (1) ; Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 , 276 (1988). USCA4 Appeal: 22-7340 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 for an extension of time under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5 ) or for a reopen ing of the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)( 6). Accordingly, we remand this case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether McKenzie is entitled to an extension or a reopening of the appeal period . The record, as supplemented , will be returned to this court for further conside ration.
REMANDED USCA4 Appeal: 22-7340 Doc: 9 Filed: 08/31/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
#### Conners, Appellant, *v.*West Greene School District.

Argued April 25, 1969.

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

*Barbara II. Conners,*appellant, in propria persona.

*James Hook,*with him *Hook and Hook,*for appellee.

June 27, 1969:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Decree affirmed at appellant’s cost.

Mr. Justice Jones took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Before the Third Division,

April 10, 1952

No. 56547.

protest 162537-K (New York).

#### Vintage Wines, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Lancers Rose Wine in bottles or jugs similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 53224, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### In the Matter of Robert Chapman and others.

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
#### JOSEPH SAIA, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. GEORGE BELLIZIO, d/b/a BELLIZIO MACHINE CO., *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

*Messrs. Schenclc, Price, Smith & King, Mr. Alten W. Bead, Mr. Clifford W. Starret*and *Mr. George J. Benson*for the petitioners.

*Mr. John V. Burns*for the respondent.

April 30, 1968.

Granted.
**Exhibit 99.7**

 

 

MANAGEMENT’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR FINANCIAL INFORMATION

 

Sprott Asset Management LP, the “Manager” of the Sprott Physical Silver Trust (the “Trust”) is responsible for the integrity, consistency, objectivity and reliability of the Financial Statements of the Trust. International Financial Reporting Standards have been applied and management has exercised its judgment and made best estimates where appropriate.

 

The Manager’s internal controls and supporting procedures maintained provide reasonable assurance that financial records are complete and accurate. These supporting procedures include the oversight of RBC Investor Services, the Trust’s valuation agent.

 

Management has assessed the effectiveness of the internal controls over financial reporting as at December 31, 2016 using the framework found in Internal Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based upon this assessment, management has concluded that as at December 31, 2016 the Manager’s internal controls over financial reporting were effective.

 

KPMG LLP, the independent auditors appointed by the Manager of the Trust, have audited the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2016 in addition to auditing the Trust’s Financial Statements as of the same date. Their reports, which expressed an unqualified opinion, can be found on pages 2 to 3 of the Financial Statements. KPMG LLP have full and free access to, and meet periodically with, the Manager of the Trust to discuss their audit and matters arising there from, such as, comments they may have on the fairness of financial reporting and the adequacy of internal controls.

 

 

Kevin HibbertChief Financial Officer  March 23, 2017

 

----
#### John Pettit, *Respondent, v.*The City of Kingston, Appellant.

Order reversed, without costs. Opinion by Boardman, J.
EXHIBIT 31.1

I, H. Dean Jones II, certify that:

1)

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boardwalk Pipelines, LLC;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this 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)) for the registrant and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)

Disclosed in this 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 its most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





Dated:  July 29, 2005

/s/ H. Dean Jones II





H. Dean Jones II, President
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00241-CV

EX PARTE Rigoberto ACEVEDO

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-18410

Honorable Gloria Saldaña, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 25, 2014

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellant, the State of Texas, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We order all costs assessed against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(d)(absent agreement of parties, costs are taxed against appellant).

PER CURIAM
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v HOWARD L. MOON, Sergeant, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

13 USCMA 444, 32 CMR 444

No. 16,207

January 25, 1963

*445
      *Lieutenant Colonel William H. Bennison*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused.

*Major Daniel F. McConnell*argued the cause for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

FERGUSON, Judge:

A general court-martial convened by the Commandant, Marine Corps Schools, found the accused guilty of larceny, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, 10 USC § 921, and sentenced him to bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement at hard labor for two years, and reduction to the grade of private. The convening authority reduced the confinement involved to a period of one year, and the forfeitures to a loss of $45.00 per month for a like period. Otherwise, he approved the sentence. The board of review affirmed. We granted accused’s petition for review on the issue whether the law officer’s instructions concerning a purported denial of counsel during his interrogation by criminal investigators shifted the burden of proof by requiring an affirmative finding that “accused requested but was denied counsel” in order to reject his confession.

Our scrutiny of the record indicates existence of a substantial question for the court members concerning whether accused was in fact denied the right to consult with counsel during his interrogation. United States v Gunnels, 8 USCMA 130, 23 CMR 354; United States v Rose, 8 USCMA 441, 24 CMR 251; United States v Brown, 13 USCMA 14, 32 CMR 14; United States v Powell, 13 USCMA 364, 32 CMR 364.

The instructions given by the law officer with respect to this issue are, in all material particulars, identical to those condemned by this Court in United States v Odenweller, 13 USCMA 71, 32 CMR 71. For the reasons set forth in that case, prejudicial error must also be found here.

The decision of the board of review is reversed and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy. A rehearing may be ordered.

Judge Kilday concurs.

Quinn, Chief Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent for the reasons set out in my dissent in United States v Odenweller, 13 USCMA 71, 32 CMR 71.
No. 56049.

protest 151065-K (Galveston).

#### Southwestern Drug Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
**Exhibit      32.2**

**SECTION      1350 CERTIFICATION**

|   | 1. | The                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the period ended                September 30, 2006 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with the                requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange                Act of                1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d));                and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

 

----

----
#### Ratsey & Lapthorn, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6645.

Entry No. 745493, etc.

-Invoices dated Minories, London, England, January 17, 1942, etc.

Certified January 26, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 2, 1942, etc.

(Decided December 18, 1946)

*Sharretts & Hillis (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto: £y[

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Jason
Kulas, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the
period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2010-1 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed
by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports,
the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance
with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the
following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association.



/s/ Jason KulasName:

Jason KulasTitle:

President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 28, 2014
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee *v*THEODORE E. PHILLIPS, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

9 USCMA 151, 25 CMR 413

No. 10,565

Decided April 11, 1958

*Ensign David M, Clinard,*USNR, argued the cause for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant (jg) John V. L. Ellicott,*USNR, argued the cause for Appel-lee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

RoRERT E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

A special court-martial convicted the accused of the larceny of a $24 wrist watch, in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 921, and sentenced him to a bad-conduct discharge, partial forfeiture of pay, and confinement at hard labor for *152six months. The convening authority-approved the sentence, but in view of the accused’s “immaturity” suspended the execution of the discharge with provision for automatic remission. With further modification of the sentence, the supervisory authority approved the conviction and it was affirmed by a board of review. The question before us concerns the correctness of trial counsel’s cross-examination of the accused on a previous conviction by summary court-martial for a *1§*day unauthorized absence and previous “office hours” under Article 15 of the Uniform Code, 10 USC § 815.

The Government concedes that, at least in part, trial counsel’s cross-examination on the matters noted was error. It contends, however, that the accused was not prejudiced in regard to the findings and that the staff legal officer’s advice to the supervisory authority shows that the error was considered by the latter and was the basis for his reduction of the period of confinement. In his brief, appellate defense counsel admits the “pettiness” of the previous acts of misconduct injected into the case by trial counsel, but, nevertheless, maintains that the evidence prejudiced the accused by casting doubt upon his credibility. Assuming that the whole of trial counsel’s interrogation was improper, the acts of previous misconduct are so minor and so unrelated to the issues in the case that we are certain they had no adverse influence upon the court members in their deliberations on the accused’s guilt or innocence. United States v Renshaw, 9 USCMA 52, 25 CMR 314; United States v Nicholson, 8 USCMA 499, 25 CMR 3. And if the evidence had any adverse effect upon the court-martial in adjudging the sentence, the action taken by the supervisory authority was sufficient to eliminate it. United States v Peters, 8 USCMA 520, 25 CMR 24.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Judges LATIMER and Feeguson concur.