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

 

**Certification**

 

I,Dale B. Herbst, certify that:

 

1.            I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of WIIComponents, Inc.

 

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

 

3.            Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.            The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

a.             Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c.             Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.            The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a.             All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

 
| **Date: November 14, 2005** |                                    |
|----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                             | */s/ Dale B. Herbst*                    |   |
|                             | Dale B. Herbst                          |
|                             | Vice President, Treasurer and Secretary |

 

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18**

**of the United States Code**

 

I, Morton A. Plawner, Chief Financial Officer of PSE&G Transition Funding II LLC, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSE&G Transition Funding II LLC on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PSE&G Transition Funding II LLC.

 

|   | /s/ Morton A. Plawner   |
|--------|-----------------------------------|
|   | **Morton A. Plawner**        |
|   | Chief Financial Officer           |
|   | May 11, 2007                      |

 

 

 

----
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO RULE 13a - 14(a) OF THE**

**SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT 0F 1934, AS AMENDED,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Don Peay certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of World Trophy Outfitters, Inc. for the quarter ended December 31, 2006.

 

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 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. I am 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 my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, is made known to me 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 my 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. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 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/ Don Peay |
|--------|--------------|

Don Peay, President and Chief Executive Officer 

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)

February 14, 2007
#### Kathleen WHITE f/k/a Kathleen Darts, Appellant, v. MID-STATE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. 87-2278.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 4, 1988.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 1988.

*960John B. Root, III, of Neduchal & Magee, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.

Chester J. Trow, of Chester J. Trow, P.A., Ocala, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See Quinn Plumbing Company v. New Miami Shores Corporation,*100 Fla. 413, 129 So. 690 (1930).

ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur.

SHARP, C.J., concurs in part, dissents in part, with opinion.

SHARP, Chief Judge,

concurring in part, and dissenting in part.

It is clear that in Florida there is a right of re-foreclosure against an omitted junior mortgagee. *Quinn Plumbing Co. v. New Miami Shores Corp.,*100 Fla. 413, 129 So. 690 (1930). However, I think the order on the motion for summary judgment was improper in requiring payment of accrued interest past the date of the first foreclosure.

This appeal is from a final summary judgment of foreclosure against White, an omitted junior mortgagee. Earlier Mid-State foreclosed on the real property, but omitted to join White. Mid-State purchased the property at the first foreclosure sale on November 25, 1985.

The second foreclosure judgment appealed here is based upon White’s failure to comply with the trial court's order on a motion for summary judgment which required her to pay Mid-State the sum of $148,819.45 in principal, together with interest at the rate of $42.99 per day. This interest calculation runs from the date of the mortgage note through to date of the second foreclosure in October of 1987. In the time interval between the two foreclosures, Mid-State was the fee owner and presumably had possession and right to all rents and profits arising therefrom. In fact, it sold the property to the Heindels, on January 29, 1987, almost a year before the second foreclosure, and presumably has had the benefit of sales proceeds from the property.

In a re-foreclosure action where the senior mortgagee becomes the owner of the property, or receives proceeds at the first foreclosure, it is error to award interest, real property taxes, hazard insurance premiums, maintenance expenses, or the like for the time *following*the first foreclosure. *Raskin v. Otten,*273 So.2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). At the date of the first foreclosure, the note and mortgage logically should be extinguished or “paid.” *See generally New York Life Ins. Co. v. Erb,*276 Mich. 610, 268 N.W. 754, 755 (1936).

I do not think that *Quinn*mandates a contrary result. It merely grants a second chance to a negligent mortgagee to foreclose a junior, overlooked mortgagee or lienor. It should not be read to breathe fresh life into an expended note and mortgage. Interest and taxes accruing *after*the first foreclosure are recoverable only as part of the amount for which the property may be sold or profitably employed. *See New York Life, supra.*
<PAGE>


                                                                     EXHIBIT 12
                                                                     ----------

                      STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIOS
                      -----------------------------------
                                 (In thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                               Years Ended December 31,
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------
                                                1994          1995        1996          1997          1998
                                                ----          ----        ----          ----          ----
<S>                                             <C>          <C>           <C>        <C>         <C>     
Fixed charges, as defined:
    Interest on long-term debt
      and amortization of debt discount         $736         $859          $581       $3,696      $ 10,676
                                                ====         ====          ====       ======      ========

Earnings, as defined:
    Income (loss) before income taxes        $ 6,134      $16,112        $8,522     $(15,208)       $4,336

     Total fixed charges (as shown above)        736          859           581        3,696        10,676
                                             -------   ----------    ----------   ----------    ----------

       Earnings available for fixed charges   $6,870      $16,971        $9,103     $(11,512)      $15,012
                                               =====       ======         =====      ========       ======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and
preferred dividend requirements                  9.3x        19.8x         15.7x            -          1.4x
                                                ====        =====         =====   =======  ==         ====




</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      Pursuant To**


**Section
      906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





The
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
      that:




1.  This
      quarterly report of Affinity Media International Corp. 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 operation of Affinity Media International
      Corp.




Date:August
                14, 2006
            By:
            **/s/
              Peter
              Engel**Peter
              EngelChief
                Executive Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Affinity Media International Corp. and
      will
      be retained by Affinity Media International Corp. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 10.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the inclusion of our report dated March 2, 2004 relating to the consolidated annual accounts of Gas Natural, S.D.G., S.A. and its
group companies as of December 31, 2003 and 2002 and for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2003, in the Annual Report of Repsol YPF, S.A. on
Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 and in the Registration Statements Nos. 333-12254 and 333-10668 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



June
30, 2004

---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 16866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7090]


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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 3 p.m., Wednesday, March 21, 2012.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Consideration of Supervisory Activity. Closed pursuant to some 
or all of the following: exemptions (8), (9)(i)(B) and 9(ii).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone: 703-518-6304

Mary Rupp,
Board Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7090 Filed 3-20-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 18280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7385]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

    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 
29, 2012 at 2 p.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 
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 Gallagher, 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 29, 2012 will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    An adjudicatory 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 22, 2012.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-7385 Filed 3-23-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### SARASOTA HERALD-TRIBUNE CO., INC., and John Gibeaut, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Walter R. TALLEY, Respondent.

No. 87-3050.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 26, 1988.

George K. Rahdert and Bonita M. Rig-gens of Rahdert, Acosta & Dickson, P.A., St. Petersburg, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Louis F. Hubener, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for review, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.100(d), of a “gag order” issued by respondent in *State v. Nowitzke,*Nos. 85-1835-F and 87-1931-F, which was at the time being prosecuted in the Circuit Court in and for Manatee County. While it appears that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in issuing the order without prior notice and opportunity to be heard by at least one member of the media, *see News-Press Publishing Co., Inc. v. Hayes,*493 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); *Times Publishing Co. v. Penick,*433 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); *Times Publishing Co. v. Hall, 357*So.2d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), we deny the petition because the issue has become moot in that Nowitzke was convicted of the charges against him while this petition for review was pending. We further note that on October 28, 1987, this court issued an order in these proceedings which stayed respondent’s order until such time as the media was given notice and a hearing on the issuance of the “gag order.” No such notice and hearing was held before Nowitzke’s trial began; thus, the stay of the “gag order” was in effect during Nowitzke’s trial which has now concluded.

Petition for review denied.

RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 11



                           THE NATIONAL REGISTRY INC.
                         CALCULATION OF LOSS PER SHARE
                   (In thousands except per share information)


                               YEAR ENDED        YEAR ENDED        YEAR ENDED
                               DECEMBER 31,      DECEMBER 31,      DECEMBER 31,
                                  1994              1995(1)            1996
                               ------------      ------------     -------------

PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED 
  LOSS PER SHARE:

Weighted average shares
  outstanding of Common Stock     19,093            23,238           28,077


Net loss                        $ (7,006)         $ (5,070)        $ (7,340)
                                --------          --------         --------

Preferred Stock dividend            --                --              1,412

Net loss attributable to
   Common Stockholders            (7,006)           (5,070)          (8,752)

Net loss per share              $  (0.37)         $  (0.22)        $  (0.31)
                                ========          ========         ========


(1)   During the period indicated, the Company has 100,000 shares of preferred
      stock convertible into 6,336,154 shares of common stock, 4,876,000 options
      and 75,200 warrants outstanding to purchase common stock of the Company.
      Preferred stock, stock options and warrants are not considered in the
      calculation because they are anti-dilutive in the aggregate.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


                            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 transition report of Enterasys Networks, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the transition period ended December 29, 2001 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Richard S. Haak, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


/S/ Richard S. Haak, Jr.
----------------------------------
Richard S. Haak, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer
November 25, 2002
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANUEL DE JESUS MEJIABERMUDEZ, AKA Carlos HernandezBermudez, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-73023 

Agency No. A200-696-353 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 15, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Manuel De Jesus Mejia-Bermudez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Petitioner’s request for oral 

argument is denied.

FILED

OCT 22 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252. We review the denial of withholding of removal for substantial evidence, 

and we review questions of law de novo. Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 

(9th Cir. 2018). We deny the petition for review.

We reject Mejia-Bermudez’s contention that the BIA applied an incorrect 

legal standard in considering whether the record as a whole, including evidence of 

gang threats and extortion, established past persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. 

Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (relying on all of the surrounding events 

to decide whether there was persecution). Substantial evidence supports the 

agency’s conclusion that the past harm Mejia-Bermudez suffered in El Salvador 

did not rise to the level of persecution. See id. (threats rise to the level of 

persecution only when they are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering 

or harm); He v. Holder, 749 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir. 2014) (persecution may be 

established by a substantial economic disadvantage that interferes with the 

applicant’s livelihood). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that 

Mejia-Bermudez failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution. See

Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future 

persecution was not objectively reasonable). Thus, Mejia-Bermudez’s withholding 

of removal claim fails.
3 

The BIA did not err in denying Mejia-Bermudez’s motion to terminate 

proceedings. See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) 

(initial notice to appear need not include time and date information to vest 

jurisdiction in the immigration court).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.