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

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Candace Sikorski, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Mystica Candle
     Corp.;

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 statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
     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 quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this
     quarterly report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
14th day of November, 2006.


/s/ Candace Sikorski
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14842-14843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6114]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, March 
15, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has

[[Page 14843]]

certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
March 15, 2012 will be: Institution and settlement of injunctive 
actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    A collection matter; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the 
Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: March 8, 2012.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6114 Filed 3-9-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2037-2038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-612]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XA928


Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of Anadromous Fish

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of decision and availability of decision documents for 
ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) research/enhancement permit 16578.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public that a direct take permit has 
been issued to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, pursuant 
to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), for installation and 
operation of three weirs on tributaries of the lower Columbia River, 
and that the decision documents are available upon request.

DATES: Permit 16578 was issued on November 17, 2011, subject to certain 
conditions set forth therein. The permit expires on December 31, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the decision documents or any of the 
other associated documents should be directed to the Salmon Management

[[Page 2038]]

Division, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service, 1201 NE. Lloyd 
Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon 97232. The documents are also 
available on the Internet at www.nwr.noaa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich Turner, Portland, OR, at phone 
number: (503) 736-4737, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e6948f858ec8929394888394a688898787c8818990"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a4d6cdc7cc8ad0d1d6cac1d6e4cacbc5c58ac3cbd2">[email protected]</span></a>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is relevant to the following 
species and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs):
    Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): Threatened, naturally 
produced and artificially propagated Lower Columbia River.
    Chum salmon (O. keta): Threatened, naturally produced and 
artificially propagated Columbia River.
    Coho salmon (O. kisutch): Threatened, naturally produced and 
artificially propagated Lower Columbia River.
    Steelhead (O. mykiss): Threatened, naturally produced and 
artificially propagated Lower Columbia River.

    Dated: January 10, 2012.
Angela Somma,
Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-612 Filed 1-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.1

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

The undersigned, David O'Neill, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Global Electronic Recovery Corp., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	the quarterly report on Form 10-KSB of Global Electronic Recovery Corp. for the period ended April 30, 2007 (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 Global Electronic Recovery Corp.

Dated: June 15, 2007

/s/ David O'NeillDavid O'Neill
President, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Dynamic Health Products, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mandeep K. Taneja, Chief Executive Officer and 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:



| | (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/ Mandeep K. Taneja                
|Mandeep K. Taneja                    
|Chief Executive Officer and President
|June 26, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 46 (Thursday, March 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14015-14016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5591]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged 
in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) 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 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. 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 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than March 23, 2012.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice 
President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. Carver Financial Corporation, Savannah, Georgia, to retain 
control of Carver Development CDE I LLC, Savannah, Georgia, and thereby 
continue to engage in community development activities pursuant to 
section 225.28 (b)(12)(i) of Regulation Y.



[[Page 14016]]

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 2, 2012.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2012-5591 Filed 3-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2211 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2211

  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain steam hair straighteners.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mr. Dodd (for himself and Mr. Lieberman) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on certain steam hair straighteners.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN STEAM HAIR STRAIGHTENERS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Steam hair          Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        straighteners                                                      31/2011.......
                        each with
                        removable water
                        reservoir, having
                        mechanical
                        controls with at
                        least 3 but not
                        more than 6
                        settings to
                        control the
                        volume of water
                        released from the
                        reservoir into
                        the steam chamber
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        8516.32.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23.1




                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS
WORLD AIRWAYS, INC.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No.333-13575,  No.  333-14461 and No. 333- 14457) on Form S-8 and  registration
statements (No. 333-14455, No. 333-39673 and No. 333-42681) on Form S-3 of World
Airways,  Inc. of our report  dated  February  9, 1998,  relating to the balance
sheets of World Airways,  Inc. as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related
statements of operations,  changes in common  stockholders' equity (deficit) and
cash flows for each of the years in the  three-year  period  ended  December 31,
1997, and the related financial statement schedule,  which report appears in the
December 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of World Airways, Inc.




                                                         KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


WASHINGTON, D.C.
MARCH 31, 1998
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 98-60211

Summary Calendar

_______________

ABU KAMAL,

Petitioner,

VERSUS

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

_________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals

(A70-848-392)

_________________________

June 14, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Abu Kamal petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA")

dismissing his petition for asylum and withholding of deportation. He argues that he is entitled to

asylumbecause he was persecuted while living inBangladesh and that he has a well-founded fear that

he will be persecuted if he returnsthere. He avers that the BIA did not give meaningful consideration

to his evidence showing that his fear of return is well-founded.

Our review is limited to evidence included in the administrative record. See Miranda-Lores v.

INS, 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5thCir. 1994). There is substantial evidence to support the BIA's determination
2

that Kamalwas not persecuted while inBangladesh. See Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 583 (5th

Cir. 1996). Kamal was questioned by law enforcement personnel as part of an investigation of

President Ershad but never was subjected to physical mistreatment, nor was he arrested. While

Kamal claims he lost responsibilities at the bank, he suffered no diminished salary. 

Kamal contends that the BIA's decision does not reflect that it gave meaningful consideration to

all the relevant evidence concerning hisfear of future persecution. While "we do not require that the

BIA address evidentiary minutiae or write any lengthy exegesis," id. at 585, we do require that the

BIA's decision reflect that it gave meaningful consideration to all the relevant evidence regarding the

fear of future persecution, see id.

The BIA did not adopt the findings and conclusions of the immigration judge, so its own findings

are especially limited. The BIA did not, for example, address the murder of other banking officials,

the threats made on Kamal's life, or the inquiries into his whereabouts after he left Bangladesh. Nor

did the BIA address the information in the State Department reports concerning continuing human

rights abuses in Bangladesh.

The petition for review is GRANTED, and the order of the BIA is VACATED and REMANDED

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not, however, intimate what conclusion

the BIA should reach on remand.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1165 

KA 14-00059 

PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTHONY A. CARTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R.

LOWRY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L.

D’Amico, J.), rendered November 20, 2013. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury

verdict of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]),

defendant contends that the conviction is not supported by legally

sufficient evidence and that the verdict is against the weight of the

evidence with respect to the issues of intent to cause physical injury

and justification. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People

(see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we conclude that the evidence

that defendant stabbed the victim in the face and leg is legally

sufficient to establish that defendant intended to cause physical

injury (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). To the

extent that defendant contends that the evidence is legally

insufficient to support the conviction because the People failed to

disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt, we

conclude that such contention is unpreserved for our review inasmuch

as defendant failed to move for a trial order of dismissal on that

ground (see People v Fafone, 129 AD3d 1667, 1668, lv denied 26 NY3d

1039). In any event, the evidence is legally sufficient to disprove

defendant’s justification defense (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at

495).

We further conclude that, viewing the evidence in light of the

elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson,

9 NY3d 342, 349), the verdict is not against the weight of the

evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). Even assuming,
-2- 1165 

KA 14-00059 

arguendo, that a different verdict would not have been unreasonable,

we note that “ ‘the jury was in the best position to assess the

credibility of the witnesses and, on this record, it cannot be said

that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be

accorded’ ” (People v Chelley, 121 AD3d 1505, 1506, lv denied 24 NY3d

1218, reconsideration denied 25 NY3d 1070). 

Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6945

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH EARL LOGAN, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CR-99-141, CV-02-197) Submitted: July 19, 2002 Decided: August 1, 2002 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Earl Logan, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* On direct appeal, we found that the evidence was sufficient to convict Logan on all counts, that his claim under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), lacked merit and that the district court properly held him accountable for between 500 grams and 1.5 kilograms of cocaine. See United States v. Roach , 2001 WL 242209 (4th Cir. Mar. 12, 2001) (No. 00-4163) (unpublished). Logan now challenges his attorney’s alleged failure to press a Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion, to raise an Apprendi claim, and to attack the quantity of drugs for which he was held responsible. These Sixth Amendment claims were not decided on direct appeal. Nonetheless, they are without merit because counsel’s performance cannot be deficient when she fails to raise substantive claims that were found to be baseless on direct appeal. 2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Earl Logan, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2002). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Logan , Nos. CR-99-141; CV-02-197 (E.D. Va. June 4, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED