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

            PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Brett D. Mayer, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Bingham Canyon
Corporation;

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
issuers'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/ Brett D. Mayer
Date: August 5, 2005          ___________________________________________
                              Brett D. Mayer, Principal Financial Officer
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16E0009. TONER v. CHAVEZ.

Walter John Toner, IV has filed in this court an “Emergency Application for

Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order.” While Toner’s motion purports to be an

emergencymotion, it does not meet the requirements of Court of Appeals Rule 40 (b).

In addition, Toner cannot circumvent the interlocutory procedure by including

“Emergency” in the caption of his motion. To appeal from the trial court’s

interlocutory ruling, Toner was required to obtain a certificate of immediate review

and otherwise follow the requirements of Court of Appeals Rule 30 (b) and OCGA

§ 5-6-34 (b). For these reasons, his motion is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

09/21/2015

September 21, 2015
# C_2015138EN.01000901.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-502/13) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Application of a reduced rate - Supply of digital books or electronic books))

(2015/C 138/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Soulay and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: D. Holderer, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Chatziioakeimidou and A. de Gregorio Merino, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Jacobs and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| (1) | Declares that, by applying a rate of value added tax of 3 % to the supply of digital or electronic books, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 99, 110 and 114 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax as amended by Council Directive 2010/88/EU of 7 December 2010, read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Declares that, by applying a rate of value added tax of 3 % to the supply of digital or electronic books, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 99, 110 and 114 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax as amended by Council Directive 2010/88/EU of 7 December 2010, read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC;

| (2) | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| (3) | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

1

---
NUTRA PHARMA CORP.


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

                                               Exhibit 32.1

  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Nutra Pharma Corp. (the
  "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003, as
  filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
  (the "Report"), Rik Deitsch, President and Chief Executive Officer of
  the Company and Zirk Engelbrecht, Vice President and Chief Financial
  Officer of the Company, each 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. To my knowledge, 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 the Company.


  /s/ Rik Deitsch
  -------------------------------------------------
  By:   Rik Deitsch
  Its:  President and Chief Executive Officer
  Date: November 19, 2003


  /s/ Zirk Engelbrecht
  -------------------------------------------------
  By:   Zirk Engelbrecht
  Its:  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
  Date: November 19, 2003
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. William Falls, Relator, *v.*B. John Tutuska, as Sheriff of Erie County, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Erie County,

March 28, 1966.

*789
      *Francis X. Murphy*for relator. *Michael F. Dillon, District Attorney (Joseph Burke*of counsel), for respondent.

Matthew J. Jasen, J.

Pursuant to section 222-d of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relator makes application to discharge him from custody on the ground that the Grand Jury of Erie County failed to indict him at the next term following date of imprisonment.

It appears that the relator was charged by information with the violation of section 404 of the Penal Law, burglary in the third degree, violation of section 1897 of the Penal Law, and unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon, before the Justice of the Peace of the Town of Newstead on the 7th day of December, 1965. At the time of his arraignment on the same day his then attorney, Frederick Friedman, requested an adjournment of the hearing until January 7, 1966. A hearing was had on that day and he was held for the Grand Jury.

The case was not submitted by the District Attorney to the January Grand Jury and after the jury was discharged relator made this application to be released from custody.

Subsequent to the return date of this application, the February Grand Jury reported an indictment against the relator on February 25, 1966.

Upon the facts and circumstances presented, this court is of the opinion that section 667 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not section 222-d is applicable to a proceeding after a defendant had been bound over for Grand Jury action.

This section specifically states that “ When a person has been held to answer for a crime, if an indictment be not found against him, at the next term of the court at which he is held, to answer, the court may on application of the defendant order the prosecution to be dismissed, unless good cause to the contrary be shown.”

Here the relator was held for Grand Jury action on January 7, 1966, at which time the January Grand Jury was already in session. The “ next ” Grand Jury Term commenced on February 7,1966.

Therefore, the indictment of the relator on February 25, 1966 by the February Grand Jury was within the statutory period and the writ should be dismissed,
# C_2012227EN.01003801.xml

| 28.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/38

---

Action brought on 7 June 2012 — ZZ v Court of Auditors

(Case F-59/12)

2012/C 227/64

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the vacancy notice ECA/2011/67 for the post of Director of the Directorate for Human Resources.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the vacancy notice ECA/2011/67; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the vacancy notice ECA/2011/67;

| — | annul all of the decisions taken in the course of the recruitment procedure opened following the vacancy notice ECA/2011/67; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul all of the decisions taken in the course of the recruitment procedure opened following the vacancy notice ECA/2011/67;

| — | pay compensation for the material damage suffered consisting in the loss of financial rights connected to the appointment (including career and pension rights) and, therefore, the payment of those rights with effect from 1 January 2001; |
| --- | --- |

—

pay compensation for the material damage suffered consisting in the loss of financial rights connected to the appointment (including career and pension rights) and, therefore, the payment of those rights with effect from 1 January 2001;

| — | taking account of the context of those decisions, award EUR 15 000 as compensation for the non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

taking account of the context of those decisions, award EUR 15 000 as compensation for the non-material damage;

| — | order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.

---
#### Pacific Customs Brokerage Co. *v.*United States

No. 7672.

Pro forma invoices dated Jumper, Canada, September 4, 1947, etc.

Entered at Yanceboro, Me., September 10, 1947, etc., and Holeb-Jackman, Me., October 23, 1947, etc.

Entry Nos. V-299, etc.; H-225, etc.

(Decided February 23, 1949)

*John C. Ray*for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief 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:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement as listed in the at*412tached schedule, are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in C. J. Tower & Sons vs. United States, R. D. 7624, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

. On the agreed facts 1 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 importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
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

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Chancellorsville Sailor Dubbed Oil Queen

By Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Sarah Myers, USS Chancellorsville (CG 62) Public Affairs

                SOUTH CHINA SEA  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Commander of the U.S. 7th Fleet website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Commander of the U.S. 7th FleetUSS ChancellorsvillepetroleumoillubricantsPOLfuel
# C_2013055EN.01001401.xml

| 23.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/14

---

Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Al Toun and Al Toun Group v Council

(Case T-326/12) (1)

1

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Removal from the list of persons concerned - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 55/25

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Salim Georges Al Toun (Al Ghassaneya-Lattakia, Syria) and Al Toun Group (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: S. Koev, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and I. Gurov, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56), Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782 (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 9), Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation No 36/2012 (OJ 2012 L 126, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicants.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The Council of the European Union is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council of the European Union is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.

1

---
No. 96-7912.

#### Osias *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
1 

### Muldoon, Albert (OST)

From: Muldoon, Albert (OST)

Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:00 PM

To: 'mike@flygrandisland.com'; 'cityadministrator@grand-island.com';

'MayorJensen@grand-island.com'

Cc: American Airlines, Colin Wheeler (colin.wh eeler@aa.com); 'Zapata, Karyn'; Schlemmer,

Kevin (OST)

Subject: EAS at Grand Island, NE - Request for Comments - Due March 25, 2015

Attachments: 2015 EAS Proposal - GRIDFW - American Airlines.pdf

All:

I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation at Grand Island, Nebraska, and give you an

opportunity to submit comments on the record before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for

Aviation and International Affairs. In anticipation of the expiration of the current EAS contract, the Department issued

Order 2015

‐ 1

‐ 22 (January 27, 2015) requesting proposals from carriers interested in providing EAS at Grand Island,

NE. In response to our request, the Department received one proposal, from American Airlines, the incumbent.

American proposes to continue its current pattern of service at Grand Island, consisting of two daily nonstop round trips

to the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, utilizing 50

‐ seat regional jet aircraft operated by American Airlines’

regional brand American Eagle. American also asks that the community and the Department waive the right to “hold

‐ in”

American and instead agree to a 120

‐ day notice of termination should it wish to exit the market.

I have attached a copy of the proposal to this email for your review. The proposal will also soon be available online

through the Federal Dockets Management System at www.regulations.gov by searching for docket: DOT

‐ OST

‐ 2002

‐

13983.

Please carefully review the proposal and submit any comments you may have as soon as possible, but no later than

March 25, 2015. Please send your comments via email to EAS@dot.gov

. Feel free to contact me if you have any

questions and please forward this email to any relevant parties not included on this email.

Regards,

A.J.

A.J. Muldoon

Office of Aviation Analysis

U.S. Department of Transportation

albert.muldoon@dot.gov

(202) 366

‐ 1058
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

In connection with the Annual Report
of Strategic Hotels & Resorts, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Laurence S. Geller, 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:



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 1, 2007

|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|                                          
|/S/    LAURENCE S.
GELLER                 
|Laurence S. Geller Chief Executive Officer