alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATION

Principal Financial Officer

I,Richard Wachter, certify that:

1. 	I have reviewed this quarterly report of Firstbingo.com 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 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 our 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.



|Date: May 23, 2005 | /s/ Richard Wachter                      
|------------------ | -----------------------------------------
|                   | Richard Wachter                          
|                   | President and Principal Financial Officer





---
Before the First Division,

April 28, 1943

No. 48237.

#### Petition 6324-R of A. J. Schwartz (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The petitioner’s reliance upon the value stated in the official papers was based upon an affidavit from the Brazilian shipper-attesting to the correctness thereof and was the reason for the petitioner’s-refusal to change the invoice prices when he was advised by his customs broker as well as the customs examiner that they were not acceptable to the appraiser. The customs examiner admitted he had returned at invoiced values all previous entries by the petitioner extending over a period of approximately 2 years. Counsel for the petitioner, in his brief, stressed unfamiliarity with customs procedure as the reason for petitioner’s failure to accept the information offered by the customs officials, but the court held that ignorance of the law is not sufficient to grant relief, citing *Schrikker*v. *United States*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 562, T. D. 41433), the principal question being the good faith and intention of the importer, citing *United States*v. *American Metal Co.*(12 id. 440, T. D. 40612). The sworn statement in the form ©f an affidavit of the foreign shipper, and the uniform practice over a period of years to which the petitioner was accustomed, during which time his invoice prices were never disputed, the court stated, created a situation which caused the petitioner to take the position he did in this case, and the court was of the opinion' that he has not forfeited his right to recover. On the record presented the petition was granted.
No. 48844.

#### Protest 44888-K of Ingram & Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Several witnesses were called on behalf of the plaintiff and the collector’s files were admitted in evidence. On the record presented it was held that the importer failed to sustain its claim for' an allowance in weight.
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

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Land and Maritime’s Avenger program a model of interagency cooperation

By Craig M. RaderDLA Land and Maritime Public Affairs

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

## Related Stories

Factory tour shows how an Abrams comes to life

DLA L&MStrong Partnerships L&M2018 L&M
Supreme Court of Florida

____________

No. SC16-451

____________

JEFFREY D. WILLIAMS, 

Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Respondent.

[June 8, 2017]

PER CURIAM.

We initially accepted discretionary review of the decision in State v. 

Williams, 184 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). Upon further consideration, we 

exercise our discretion and discharge jurisdiction. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss 

this review proceeding.

It is so ordered.

No motion for rehearing will be entertained by the Court. See Fla. R. App. 

P. 9.330(d)(2).

LABARGA, C.J., and LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and LAWSON, 

JJ., concur.

PARIENTE, J., dissents.
- 2 -

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal – Direct 

Conflict of Decisions 

First District - Case No. 1D14-5510

(Leon County)

Kevin Alvarez of the Law Office of Kevin Alvarez P.A., Tallahassee, Florida,

for Petitioner

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Robert “Charlie” Lee, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Respondent
Exhibit 32.01



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the Report (as defined under the preceding Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Walter Thomas Price III, Managing Member of Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., the general partner of Rogers
International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. (the Partnership), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 Partnership.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Walter Thomas Price IIIWalter Thomas Price IIIManaging MemberAugust 16, 2004




E-3
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Infinity  Capital Group,  Inc.,
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended  September  30, 2005 (the
"Report"),  I, Gregory H. LaBorde, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Interim
Financial Officer of the Company,  hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my 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.

/s/ Gregory H. LaBorde
------------------------
Gregory H. LaBorde
Chief Executive Officer
And Principal Interim Financial Officer
No. 96-1202.

#### Von Grabe *v.*Ziff Davis Publishing Co. et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
(Reap. Dec. 9880)

#### United China & Glass Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 237, etc.

(Decided December 19, 1960)

*Stein & Shostalc*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached 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 respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as to the merchandise marked “A” and initialed I-IGK by H. G. Kelly on the invoices *601accompanying the entries covered by the Appeals for Reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Oases, which is incorporated herein, that, at the time of exportation thereof to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of 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, were the appraised values less the proportionate part of the additions made to meet the advances by the Appraiser in similar cases, covering the non-dutiable so-called f.o.b. charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and lighterage, petties, etc., added by the importer on entry.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there were no higher foreign values for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise covered by the Appeals for Reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Oases, at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals for Re-appraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Oases may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the appraised values, less the proportionate part of the additions made to meet the advances by the appraiser in similar cases, covering the nondutiable so-called f.o.b. charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and lighterage, petties, etc., added by the importer on entry.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2012250EN.01002001.xml

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/20

---

Action brought on 10 July 2012 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission

(Case T-301/12)

2012/C 250/36

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoires CTRS (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley and M. Barnden, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Decision of 25 May 2012 refusing a marketing authorisation for ‘Orphacol — Cholic acid’; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision of 25 May 2012 refusing a marketing authorisation for ‘Orphacol — Cholic acid’;

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs of the application. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes both Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (2) because the Commission was not entitled to re-initiate the Comitology Procedure with a draft decision substantively the same as the version already rejected by the Standing Committee and Appeal Committee, nor was it empowered to adopt the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes both Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (2) because the Commission was not entitled to re-initiate the Comitology Procedure with a draft decision substantively the same as the version already rejected by the Standing Committee and Appeal Committee, nor was it empowered to adopt the contested decision.

1

2

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is in any event vitiated by fundamental errors of law in the interpretation of Directive 2001/83/EC (as amended) (3). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is in any event vitiated by fundamental errors of law in the interpretation of Directive 2001/83/EC (as amended) (3).

3

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13)

1

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1)

2

(3)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67)

3

---
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

# Food trucks invade DSCR

By Leon MooreDLA Aviation Public Affairs

Lunchtime had a different flavor, literally, on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, as food truck vendors served up the likes of shrimp and grits and shrimp tacos during a Food Truck Rally Oct. 15.

The three Army and Air Force Exchange Service contracted vendors lined up outside the front entrance of the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Operations Center to feed the long lines of folks who waited patiently for this event.

While some chose to take their food back to their desks, others took advantage of the warm, sunny October day and ate theirs at the picnic tables nearby.

This event is scheduled to be held on the 3rd Tuesday of each month. 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Food Truck RallyDefense Supply Center Richmond Virginia
EXHIBIT 32.1


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sunnyside Acres Mobile Estates
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Brian Pierson, President 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 my 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.


Date: August 14, 2007



                                        By: /s/ BRIAN PIERSON
                                            ___________________________
                                                Brian Pierson
                                                President
----

**EXHIBIT 14.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS**

 

 We consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration  Statement on Form S-8 dated October 21, 2002, of Pacific Rim Mining Corp. (the  "Company"), of our report dated January 11, 2002, relating to the audited consolidated  statements of loss and cash flows of the Company (formerly Dayton Mining Corporation)  for the year ended December 31, 2001, which appear in the Annual Report on Form  20-F of the Company filed for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2004. 

 

 “PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP” 

 

 Chartered Accountants   Vancouver, B.C. Canada   April 19, 2005 

----
#### Kenneth R. Meguin et al., Respondents, *v.*Joseph Kramer, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

December 22, 1965.

*Joseph S. Rodell*and *Michael L. Matar*for appellant. *Teller-man <& Silverstein (Walter C. Silverstein*of counsel), for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

Plaintiffs, who were not licensed to do plumbing work in New York City, may not recover a balance alleged to be due even if such work were subcontracted by plaintiffs to a licensed plumber *(Wexler*v. *Rust,*144 App. Div. 296; *Weinstein*v. *Silberfeld,*116 N. Y. S. 2d 471; see, also, *Bronold*v. *Engler,*194 N. Y. 323). However, plaintiffs are not precluded from seeking to recover any unpaid balance claimed to be due for work other than plumbing and materials furnished in connection therewith *(Johnston*v. *Dahlgren,*166 N. Y. 354; *Weinstein*v. *Silberfeld,*supra; 18 N. Y. Jur., Electricians, Plumbers, Artisans, § 25).

The judgment and order should be unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to defendant to abide the event.

Concur — Brows", Schwaetewald and Baker, JJ.

Judgment and order reversed, etc.
October 28, 1942

No. 47696.

#### Protest 44130-K of National Merchandise Co.

C. D. 678. Application by plaintiff for rehearing granted.
#### C. H. Powell Co., Inc. (Douredoure Brothers), et al. *v.*United States

No. 6566.

Entry No. 726973, etc.

Invoices dated Bougie, Algeria, August 11, 1938, etc.

Certified August 12, 1938, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., September 8, 1938, etc.

(Decided December 3, 1946)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the plaintiff's.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement involve the valuation of certain drums, filled with olive oil or other commodities, imported from various countries.

The uncontradicted evidence discloses the following facts:

1." That the issue in the instant appeals is the same in all material respects as that involved in *C. H. Powell Co., Inc. (Douredoure Bros.)*v. *United States,*28 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 310, C. A. D. 160; and the record in that case has been incorporated herein.

2. That the value found by the appraiser in each case represents the statutory foreign value of the involved merchandise.

3. That there was no export value higher than the above-mentioned foreign value.

I therefore find the proper basis of value of the involved merchandise to be the foreign value thereof as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such value is the value as found by the appraiser in each case.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.