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

            PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Donald R. Mayer, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of WorldNet, Inc.
of Nevada;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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
small business issuer 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 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.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

      (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.



                                 /s/ Donald R. Mayer
Date: May 11, 2005               ____________________________________________
                                 Donald R. Mayer, Principal Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 87 (Monday, May 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 25757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8643]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act; Notice of Agency Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:30 a.m. on 
Tuesday, May 8, 2007, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board 
of Directors will meet in closed session, pursuant to section 
552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), and (9)(A)(ii), Title 5, United 
States Code, to consider matters relating to the Corporation's 
supervisory and corporate activities.
    The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of 
the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be 
directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the 
Corporation, at (202) 898-7122.

    Dated: May 1, 2007.
    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8643 Filed 5-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-102089, 333-102091, 333-64193, 333-90361, 333-140108, and 333-155633on Form S-8, No. 333-109116 and 333-140175 on Form S-3 and No. 333-90597 on Form S-4 of our report dated June 25, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule ofSchool Specialty, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”), and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting (which report on the Company’s consolidated financial statements expresses an unqualifiedopinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s adoption of accounting guidance related to the accounting for convertible debt instruments on April 26, 2009), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K ofSchool Specialty, Inc. for the year ended April 24, 2010. 

/s/    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 

June 25, 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0131

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JONATHAN JAMES,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 23, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 13 2023

02/13/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0131
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7880

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

ZIYAD YAGHI, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

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

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00216-FL-8; 5:15-cv-00523-FL) 

Submitted: April 27, 2021 Decided: May 3, 2021

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Ziyad Yaghi, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Ziyad Yaghi appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) 

motion for relief from judgment as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion 

and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.*

 Our review of the record confirms that the 

district court properly construed Yaghi’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 motion 

over which it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling authorization from 

this court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h); McRae, 793 F.3d at 397-400. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 

Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 

(4th Cir. 2003), we construe Yaghi’s notice of appeal and informal briefs as an application 

to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Yaghi’s 

claims do not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). We therefore deny 

authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 

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

* A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s 

jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized, successive § 2255 

motion. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsFatigue Life of a NiCr-Coated Powder Metallurgy Disk Superalloy After Varied Processing and ExposuresA protective ductile NiCr coating has shown promise to mitigate oxidation and corrosion attack on superalloy disk alloys. The effects of this coating on fatigue life and failure modes of the disk superalloy are an important concern. The objective of this study was to investigate the fatigue life and failure modes of disk superalloy specimens protected by this coating, using varied pre-coating and post-coating processes. Cylindrical gage fatigue specimens of a powder metallurgy-processed disk superalloy were grit blast or wet blast before being coated with a ductile NiCrY coating, then shot peened at low or medium levels after coating. All were then heat treated, some exposed, and finally all were subjected to fatigue at high temperature. The effects of varied pre-coating treatment, post-coating shot peening, and oxidation plus hot corrosion exposures on fatigue life with the coating were compared.Document ID20180007788Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsGabb, Timothy P.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Nesbitt, James A.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Hass, Derek*(Directed Vapor Technologies International Charlottesville, VA, United States)*Telesman, Ignacy*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Draper, Susan*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Puleo, Bernadette J.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Rogers, Richard B.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Miller, Robert A.*(Vantage Partners, LLC Brook Park, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredNovember 20, 2018Publication DateNovember 1, 2018Subject CategoryMetals And Metallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN61818NASA/TM-2018-220008Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 081876.02.03.04.02.01CONTRACT_GRANT: NNC12BA01BCONTRACT_GRANT: NNX13CC70PDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.KeywordscoatingdiskoxidationcorrosionsuperalloyfatigueAvailable DownloadsNameType20180007788.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsIDRelationTitle20190001041See AlsoFatigue Life of a NiCr-Coated Powder Metallurgy Disk Superalloy After Varied Processing and Exposuresvisibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BIRDELL BROCKINGTON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 177 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of September, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
**Exhibit      13.2**

----

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

I, David John Grigson, Finance Executive    of Reuters Group PLC (the “Company”) hereby certify, pursuant    to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes – Oxley    Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

a) This amendment to the Company’s    Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003, as amended    (this “Amendment”), fully complies with the requirements of Section    13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

b) The information contained in this    Amendment fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition    and results of operation of the Company. 

Dated: 30 June 2004

|   | By /s/ | David J Grigson  |
|--------|--------|------------------|
|   |   |             |
|   |   |                  |
|   |   | David J Grigson  |
|   |   | Finance Director |

 

----
#### AZZOLLINI v. WATKINS (two cases). ABBATISTA v. WATKINS.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Oct. 18, 1948.

Order Affirmed March 10, 1949.

See 172 F.2d 897.

Charles Graff, of New York City, for plaintiffs.

John F. X. McGohey, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Harold J. Raby, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

COXE, District Judge.

These are motions by the defendant in the three above-entitled proceedings to dismiss the petitions on the ground that they fail to state claims upon which relief "can be granted.

The petitioners ask that proceedings instituted for their deportation, and which have resulted in orders for deportation, be reviewed by this court under Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S.C.A. § 1009, and that pending such review the proceedings be stayed.

In my opinion the Administrative Procedure Act has no application to such proceedings. But, assuming that it has, the petitions fail to allege facts showing that the petitioners are “suffering legal wrong” because of the proceedings. With the exception of a few unimportant facts, the petitions contain only conclusory allegations — it is not shown when, or how, the petitioners entered the United States, nor does it appear what the asserted grounds for their deportation are.

The motions of the defendants to dismiss the three petitions are in all respects granted.
February 8, 2013

MEMORANDUM

From: William H. Maxwell

EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01)

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234

Subject: Meeting with Edison Electric Institute (EEI)

Attendees :

See attached.

Discussion :

A general discussion was held regarding clarifying questions on the proposed Mercury and Air Toxics

Standards (MATS) reconsideration issues.
No. 54956.

#### Abels Wasserberg & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 148294-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
#### Daryl DOPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 972196.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Sept. 18, 1998.

*38James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Andrea J. Surette, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

W. SHARP, Judge.

Dopson’s primary argument on appeal is that he was improperly impeached at trial because, after objecting and receiving an adverse ruling by the trial judge, he was required to admit he had been convicted of a felony for which adjudication had been withheld. Under the circumstances, we affirm.

Dopson was convicted of one count of trespass to a structure,1 and six counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.2 The evidence against him was substantial. At trial, he admitted he had been convicted of four prior felonies. This was improper because in one of the cases he had pled *nolo contendere*and the court had withheld adjudication.

Dopson argues that a plea of *nolo contendere*is not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding.3 When a defendant pleads *nolo contendere*and there is *no*adjudication of guilt, evidence of the offense cannot be used to impeach the defendant pursuant to section 90.610. *Raydo v. State,*696 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), *approved in part, quashed in part,*713 So.2d 996, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S361 (Fla.1998). *See also Parker v. State,*563 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).

However, we do not need to reach the merits of this issue because we think under the circumstances, Dopson failed to demonstrate harmful error.4 The purpose of impeachment by prior conviction is to attack the credibility or believability of a witness. *Bobb v. State,*647 So.2d 881 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). In this case there were three other felony convictions with which Dopson was properly impeached. The fourth, even if erroneously so employed, did not create a reasonable possibility its use for impeachment purposes contributed to his convictions in this case. *State v. DiGuilio,*491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

AFFIRMED.

PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

1

. § 810.08, Fla. Slat. (1995)

2

. § 827.04(3), Fla. Slat. (1995).

3

. § 90.410, Fla. Slat.

4

. § 924.051(7), Fla. Slat.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

# DSCC National Day of Prayer 2018

By Brenda MinnemaDLA Land and Maritime People and Culture

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              
 

There will be a National Day of Prayer Breakfast with Defense Logistics Agency Headquarters Chaplain, Army Col. Carleton Birch, May 3, from 8:30 – 9:30 a.m.

Join us for breakfast and Birch's address for the National Day of Prayer, *The True Story of the Four Chaplains.*  

Check-in begins at 8 a.m. in the Building 20 Buckeye and Cardinal rooms. 

The breakfast will consist of eggs, sausage, hash browns, pastries, fruit, coffee, water and juice.   

The cost for this breakfast is $9.  Tickets are on sale now, outside of the Building 20 Cafeteria, 11 a.m. – 1 p.m.  Seats are limited.  

 

Contact us for additional information or tickets.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA L&MResiliency L&MCulture L&MPeople & Culture L&MSustain Our People L&M
#### AIR TERMINAL SERVICES, Inc. v. RENTZEL et al.

Civ. No. 394.

United States District Court E. D. Virginia, Alexandria Division.

Jan. 3, 1949.

Frederic J. Ball and 'F. Cleveland Hedrick, Jr., both of Washington, D. C., and Thomas R. Dyson, of Alexandria, Va., for plaintiff.

George R. Humrickhouse, U. S. Atty., of Richmond, Va., Melvin H„ Siegel, Dept, of Justice, of Washington, D. C., H. G. Morison, Asst. Atty. Gen., and (Edward H. Hickey, Dept, of Justice, of Washington, D. C.), for defendants.

BRYAN, District Judge. •

The question here is whether a regulation of the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics, prohibiting the maintenance of racial segregation at the Washington National Airport, is invalid as violative of a Federal criminal statute said to be adoptive of the segregation laws of Virginia, specifically, those in respect to restaurants.

The location of the Airport within the exterior boundaries of Virginia, and the exclusiveness of the Federal jurisdiction over the Airport with certain exceptions not controlling here, are not and cannot be. questioned. Acts of the General Assembly of Virginia of 1946, c. 26, p. 46; Public Law 208, 79th Congress, Approved October 31, 1945, sec. 107, 59 Stat. 553. But it is urged that the Federal criminal code requires racial segregation within the Airport. The reference is to the Federal assimilative crimes statute, sec. 13, Title 18 United States Code Annotated, expressly made applicable to the Airport by Section 106, Public Law 208, supra, providing that any act or omission on a Government reservation, which would be punishable under the laws of the State in which the reservation is situated if committed within the jurisdiction of that State, shall be a Federal crime with the same punishment as is fixed by the State law. The content of the Virginia statutes, Secs. 1796a and 1796 b, Code of Virginia, as amended, compelling by criminal sanctions the separation of the white and colored races in places of public assemblage and entertainment, is said to be thus made the subject matter of a Federal criminal statute. No 'other Federal law is cited as establishing segregation at the Airport.

*612The fundamental purpose of the assimilative crimes act was to provide each Federal reservation a criminal code for its local government; it was intended “to use local statutes to fill in gaps in the Federal Criminal Code”. It is not to be allowed to override other “federal policies as expressed by Acts of Congress” or by valid administrative orders, Johnson v. Yellow Cab Co., 321 U.S. 383, 389, 64 S.Ct. 622, 626, 88 L.Ed. 814, and one of those “federal policies”' has 'been the avoidance of race distinction in Federal matters. Hurd v. Hodge, 334 U.S. 24, 34, 68 S.Ct. 847. The regulation of the Administrator, who was authorized by statute, Act June 29, 1940, 54 Stat. 686, to promulgate rules for the Airport, is but an additional declaration and effectuation of that policy, and therefore its issuance is not barred by the assimilative crimes statute.

The injunction will be denied, the complaint dismissed.