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

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jeffrey Barocas, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K of The Singing Machine Company, 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(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 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(s) 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.

                                       /s/ Jeffrey Barocas

                                       Jeffrey Barocas
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       (Principal Financial Officer)

Date: January 17, 2005
#### Succession of Nestor J. SUAREZ.

No. 3356.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Fourth Circuit.

Feb. 3, 1969.

Rehearing Denied March 3, 1969.

AVrit Refused May 5, 1969.

Lambert J. Hassinger, New Orleans, for appellant.

Garvey, Salvaggio & Prendergast, Norman W. Prendergast, New Orleans, for appellee.

Before CHASEZ, REDMANN and BARNETTE, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Appellant seeks a declaration that a will in statutory form is invalid because the testator’s signature is not physically situated above, but instead' at approximately the same level and to the right of, one witness’ signature. From this fact appellant argues the requirements of LSA-R.S. 9:-2442 are not met since the document does not indicate on its face that testator signed first.

LSA-R.S. 9:2442 does not expressly say the testator must sign first. It reads, in pertinent part,

> “ * * * a will shall be valid if in writing * * *, and signed by the testator in the presence of a notary public and two witnesses in the following *manner:*

> “(1) In the presence of the notary and both witnesses the testator * * * shall sign his name on each separate sheet * * *.

> “(2) The notary and both witnesses must sign their names at the end of the *2will in the presence of the testator and in the presence of each other.

> “(3) The *foregoing facts*shall be evidenced in writing above the signatures of the notary public and witnesses and the *testator*at the end of the will. Such declaration may be in the following form * * * : ‘Signed * * * and declared by testator above named, in our presence to be his last will and testament, and in the presence of the testator and each other we have hereunto subscribed our names * * *.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.)

If the statute does impliedly require the testator to sign first, its only provision relative to the location of the testator’s signature after the attestation clause is that the clause shall be above the signatures. The statute does not require that the testator’s signature after the attestation clause must be above the other signatures.

The statute makes a will valid in form where the requirements it sets forth prior to subdivision (3) are met and are evidenced by the suggested form of attestation clause, which was used here. We cannot impose any additional formal requirement.

In Succession of Eck, 233 La. 764, 98 So. 2d 181 (1957), it is said obiter that a will is valid where, among other things, the location of the testator’s signature indicates he signed first. But the question whether a will is valid where the testator’s signature is not above the others was not even involved, much less decided, in that case.

Since LSA-R.S. 9:2442 declares a will meeting its requirements valid, and does not require that the testator’s signature after the attestation clause be located above the other signatures, we conclude the District Court properly rejected appellant’s attack on the formal validity of the will here on that ground, and the judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed at appellant’s cost.

Affirmed.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2978

To authorize a period in which otherwise eligible veterans with service-connected disabilities may apply for coverage under the Service Disabled

Veterans Insurance Program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 6, 1993

Mr. MONTGOMERY (by request) introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To authorize a period in which otherwise eligible veterans

with service-connected disabilities may apply for coverage

under the Service Disabled Veterans Insurance Program.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall establish a

4 period (with a beginning date and ending date to be deter5 mined by the Secretary) during which veterans who are

6 otherwise eligible for coverage under the Service Disabled

7 Veterans Insurance Program may apply for coverage

8 under that program without regard to the otherwise appli9 cable one-year application period.
2

HR 2978 IH

Æ
#### Cecil CROWELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-144.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 25, 1970..

Hughlan Long, Public Defender, and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was charged by information with the crime of assault to commit murder. He entered a plea of not guilty and waived jury trial. A non-jury trial was had in the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County which resulted in his being adjudicated guilty of aggravated assault and imposition of a sentence of two years in the state penitentiary.

Appellant seeks reversal of the judgment and sentence on the grounds that the trial court erred in finding the defendant guilty because the proof at trial failed to establish all material allegations of the information and that the proof varied materially from the bill of particulars.

The information by which the defendant was charged alleged that the crime was committed on the 25th of June, 1969. The proof offered by the state tended to show that the offense took place at a time different from that set forth in the in*691formation and bill of particulars. After all the evidence was presented by the state and the defendant, the state was allowed, over the objection of the defendant, to amend the bill of particulars to conform to the state's proof as to the date of the offense.

Appellant contends that he was prejudiced in his defense by the untimely amendment to the bill of particulars as he went to trial and prepared his defense to the charges based upon the state’s allegation that the crime was committed on the date specified in the information and bill of particulars which was at a time when the defendant was in the Dade County Jail. We agree with defendant’s contention and reverse. Thomas v. State, 74 Fla. 200, 76 So. 780; Daniel v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 14.

Accordingly the judgment and sentence are reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.
DCAA Response to Public Comment on DOD-2014-OS-0027-0001

A single comment was received providing comments on a number of issues but nothing 

specific to the subject of this Privacy Act System of Records Notice. The subject System 

of Records Notice pertains to the deletion of the Defense Contract Audit Agency’s 

Personnel Security Data Files (RDCAA 152.2) system. This System of Records Notice is 

being deleted because the records in question are covered by the Office of the Secretary, 

DoD/Joint Staff, Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) System of Records Notice, 

which is a Department-wide System of Records Notice. The JPAS System of Records 

Notice will ensure that the privacy of our agency employees will be appropriately 

safeguarded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         6,144,252
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  17,231,252
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,352,609)
<INVENTORY>                                    3,829,450
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               31,205,337
<PP&E>                                         64,065,667
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (25,722,376)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 81,645,994
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          24,924,768
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          449,894
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,312,052
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   81,645,994
<SALES>                                        68,033,803
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               68,033,803
<CGS>                                          57,363,963
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  57,363,963
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               11,299,839
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,408,414
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,038,413)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   273,231
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,311,644)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,311,644)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.74)



</TABLE>
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ HENRY F. RATLIFF,

Claimant

- Appellant

v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________
2021

- 1618

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 19

- 6568, Judge Joseph L. Toth.

______________________
Decided: February 1 8 , 2022

______________________
M EGHAN G ENTILE , Veterans Legal Advocacy Group, Arlington, VA, argued for claimant

- appellant. Also represented by H AROLD H AMILTON H OFFMAN , III

.
S ARAH E. K RAMER , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States De partment of Justice, Washington, DC , argued for respondent

- appellee. Also represented by B RIAN M. B OYNTON , E RIC P. B RUSKIN , M ARTIN F. H OCKEY , J R

. ; E VAN S COTT G RANT , Y. K EN L EE , Office of Case: 21-1618 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 02/18/2022RATLIFF v. MCDONOUGH 2

General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs
, Washington, DC

.

______________________
Before H UGHES , M AYER , and S TOLL , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. Henry Ratliff appeals a decision of the Court of Appealsfor Veterans Claims. The Veterans Court affirmed a decision of the Board o f Veterans ’ Appeals, denying Mr. Ratliff’s claims for disability compensation due to tinnitus. On appeal, Mr. Ratliff argues that the Veterans Court misapplied its own precedent regarding credibility determinations and erred in making its harmless error de termination. Because Mr. Ratliff’s arguments both involve an application of law to fact, they are beyond our jurisdiction to consider. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2) ; King v. Shinseki , 700 F.3d 1339, 1345

– 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal fo r lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED
No costs. Case: 21-1618 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 02/18/2022
### RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Washington Department of Ecology is seeking final authorization from the·U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a state dangerous waste program in lieu of. the federal program. In this regard, the Department has submitted an application to the EPA and expect to receive final authorization on January 26, 1984. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION**PL&~ Th~**  

### public was' notified. of 't.he, comment period via the major newspapers inthe state, i.e., the Seattle Times, Bellingham Hearald, Vancouver Columbian, Tacoma ,-News Tribune, Yakima Hearald Republic'" t:he 

### Tri-City Hearald, and the Spokesman Review. The comment period 

### began on May 

### 11, 1984 and ended on'June, 

## 11,1984. ( -r" , : \ II
... ··. >\'; '-./
. .( 1 -.I 

### Jl ,


### . Public hearings DATE were**a~so.conduct~~** 

### as PLACE follows: TIME 

### June 

### 5, 1984 Port 

## of Seattle' Commissioners, Chamber.s " , 2201 Alaskan Way South Pier 66' Seattle, Washington 7: 00 p.m.



### June 6, 1984 Spokane County Health District Auditorium W. 1101 College Spokane, Washington 7:00 p.m.



### 'June 11, 1984 Washington Department of Ecology (ROWESIX) 4224

- 6th Avenue S.E. Building 4 Olympia, Washington 2: 00 

### p.m.



### //

" 

# •....

, ...... " 

### There were no questions or comments application at any of the hearings. received during the comment period. concerning the final However, two written authorization comments were

### ".

- 

### \ RES·P·ONSE TO COMMENTORS 

# ())

,.;.**~",** . ;.;.,

..... \ "**~"~'** '

. -.-.";

......... , .. Comment #1 from the United States Department of Interior Bureau of Indian ' Affairs
.... The commentor opposes the approval and authorization of a state**.progr~** by the EPA on the basis that the program asserts its authC?rity' to regulate the activities of Indians on reservation**land~.** Comment #2 from the Colville Confederated Tribes Commentor opposes the approval ofa**~tate'** progra IIl on' 

### the basis that it may : give. the state administrative and enforcement °authority wit.hin the boundaries 'of the Colvii.le
. Indian Reservation'. ' .',

.. : ": .-'\..; .. Response to Both Comments The D.ep'artment "is seeking authority, 

## t'o ,regulate**~-:::ALL~ ba~a~c:lpus**  waste activities in the state 'including federal 'and reservation lands •

• :**.:.'~** '"t' • .. .'

",' ... ,."

...**~.** '.

. \. r ,_.' 

# ( -'''''''**:,~~'l\f:r:** ", ,,"':' ?:' '.: o;'**~.':.:,** •• : ',' : .• : •..• - "".l,!
..**',~~** _ ' •. ,. '

.. ,. .. "'.;""", "."

. . Jf

• .' .," -".. •• ,. • • - •• "", '"
. ." •• , I , , -I.,
.
#### Luca J. NAVARRO, Appellant, v. Bernard H. HOROWITZ, Jr., and Miami Beach Vacations, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 67-317.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Jan. 9, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                      GRUPO IUSACELL CELULAR, S.A. DE C.V.

                                  Certification
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                 (BY THE EQUIVALENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)


I, Carlos Espinal G., as Chairman of the Board of Grupo Iusacell Celular, S.A.
de C.V. (the "Company") hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge:


(1)      The Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended
         December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
         on the date hereof (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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.




                                                  /s/ Carlos Espinal G.
                                                  ---------------------
                                                  Name:  Carlos Espinal G.
                                                  Title: Chairman of the Board
                                                  Date:  June 30, 2003



This certification accompanies the Annual Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 10 of the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1467a) (HOLA) and Regulation LL, (12 CFR part 238) to engage                     *de novo,*                     or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 238.53 of Regulation LL (12 CFR 225.53). Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 10(c)(4)(B) of the HOLA 12 U.S.C. 1467a(c)(4)(B).

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the notices must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 4, 2018.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago*                     (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                

                    1.                     *McHenry Bancorp, Inc., McHenry, Illinois;*                     to engage de novo in purchasing and servicing loans, and holding and managing improved real estate, pursuant to sections 238.53(b)(1) and (8) of Regulation LL.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 16, 2018.

Ann Misback,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2018-17975 Filed 8-20-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.5



To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
SECURITY CAPITAL (EU) MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS S.A.
Luxembourg


We have audited the balance sheets of Security Capital (EU) Management Holdings
S.A. as at 31 December 1999 and 2000, and the related profit and loss accounts
for each of the years in the two year period ended 31 December 2000, all
expressed in United States Dollars. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Board of Directors. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion based on our audit.

We conducted our audits in accordance with International Standards on Auditing
and auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those
Standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by the
Board of Directors, as well as evaluating the overall financial statements
presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our
opinion.

In our opinion, the attached financial statements give, in conformity with
Luxembourg legal and regulatory requirements, a true and fair view of the
financial position of Security Capital (EU) Management Holdings S.A. as of 31
December 1999 and 2000 and of the results of its operations for each of the
years in the two year period ended 31 December 2000.

Accounting practices required by the Luxembourg legal and regulatory framework
vary in certain important respects from accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States of America. The application of the latter would have
affected the determination of the results of its operations expressed in United
States dollars for each of the years in the two year period ended December 31,
2000 and the determination of shareholders' equity and financial position also
expressed in United States dollars at December 31, 1999 and 2000 to the extent
summarized in Note 10 to the financial statements.


PricewaterhouseCoopers S.a.r.l.             Luxembourg, 14 March 2001
Reviseur d'entreprises
Represented by



Pascal Rakovsky
Amaury Evrard