alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Danielle Imel, certify that: 

     1.        Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of U.S. Premium Beef, LLC; 

     2.        Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

     3.        Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

     4.        Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

     a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring 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 control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

     5.        Theregistrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

     a)all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

     b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting. 

|     |  |                                                                       |
|-----|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| By: |  | /s/ Danielle Imel                                                     |
|     |  | Danielle Imel*Treasurer	(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

Date: April 12, 2005
**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:November
                14, 2006
            By:
            **/s/
              Peter
              Engel**Peter
                Engel
              Chief
                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.
#### Mary Anna RIVET and Minna Ree Winer v. FIRST FINANCIAL BANK, F.S.B.

No. 87-CC-2599.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1988.

In re First Financial Bank, F.S.B.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “A”, No. 85-35; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CW-8970.

Granted.
#### Harvey B. ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-80.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 4, 1988.

*290Harvey B. Roberts, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of an order by which his fourth Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief was denied. We find the trial court correctly denied the motion as an abuse of procedure. We therefore affirm.

Appellant in 1971 was convicted of three counts of kidnapping, and sentenced to consecutive terms of ten, five and five years incarceration on the three counts. He sought review of the conviction and sentence in this court, which per curiam affirmed. *Roberts v. State,*266 So.2d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). He then filed a Rule 3.850 motion, raising a speedy trial issue. The trial court denied the motion, and this court per curiam affirmed. *Roberts v. State,*281 So.2d 219 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). He filed a second Rule 3.850 motion, raising the issues of illegal consecutive sentences and ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied that motion, and this court per curiam affirmed. *Roberts v. State,*292 So.2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Appellant filed a third Rule 3.850 motion, raising a double jeopardy issue. The trial court denied the motion. Appellant filed a fourth Rule 3.850 motion, raising again the issue of illegal consecutive sentences and error in the trial court’s denial of his pretrial motion to quash the information. The trial court denied the motion, finding it to be successive and an abuse of procedure.

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 provides:

> A second or successive motion may be dismissed if the judge finds that it fails to allege new or different grounds for relief and the prior determination was on the merits or, if new and different grounds are alleged, the judge finds that the failure of the movant or his attorney to assert those grounds in a prior motion constituted an abuse of the procedure governed by these rules.

Appellant raised the illegal consecutive sentences issue in his second and third Rule 3.850 motions, which were denied on the merits. He erroneously asserts that he has raised new grounds for relief in his fourth Rule 3.850 motion, based on the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in *State v. Enmund,*476 So.2d 165 (Fla.1985). *En-mund,*holding that a defendant can be convicted of and sentenced for both felony-murder and the underlying felony, is inapplicable to appellant’s case, as is *Palmer v. State,*438 So.2d 1 (Fla.1983), cited in *En-mund,*prohibiting the stacking of minimum mandatory sentences for firearm possession. Appellant therefore has not asserted new or different grounds for relief based on a change in law. As to appellant’s second claim, he has failed to allege any reason for not having raised this issue in any of his three prior Rule 3.850 motions. The trial court therefore correctly denied appellant’s motion as an abuse of procedure.

The order, accordingly, is affirmed.

MILLS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

NATHAN B. WILLIAMS and JASON D. WILLIAMS
, Appellant s ,

v.

CLARIZA VERA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 2418

[ September 8, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Keathan B. Frink , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE17

- 16900

.

Lamont Mignott of Mignott Law, P.A., Miami, for appellant s

.

Ryan S. Shipp and Andrew J. Rochen of Law Office of Ryan S. Shipp, PLLC, Lantana, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J., G ROSS and D AMOORGIAN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Dorothy Couvillion BRANNON v. SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY & Succession of Anna Joyce Meche Carriere, Through her appointed Provisional Administrator, Uallen J. Carriere, Jr.

No. 86-C-2386.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 23, 1987.

In re Brannon, Dorothy Couvillion; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 85-1159; Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 84-4307.

Prior report: La.App., 496 So.2d 1354.

Granted.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 57 (Friday, March 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17038-17039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7018]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement/
Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for Military Readiness 
Activities in the Northwest Training and Testing Study Area and To 
Announce Public Scoping Meetings; Correction

AGENCY: Department of Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy published a document in the Federal 
Register (77 FR 11497) on February 27, 2012, concerning public scoping 
meetings to support the development of an Environmental Impact 
Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement for the Northwest 
Training and Testing Study Area. The document contained an incorrect 
comment period closing date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kimberly Kler, Naval Facilities 
Engineering Command, Northwest, 1101 Tautog Circle, Suite 203, 
Silverdale,

[[Page 17039]]

Washington 98315-1101, Attention: NWTT EIS/OEIS Project Manager.
    Correction: In the Federal Register (77 FR 11497) of February 27, 
2012, on page 11498, in the third column, last paragraph, correct the 
comment period date to read:
    Written comments must be postmarked no later than April 27, 2012, 
and should be mailed to: Ms. Kimberly Kler, Naval Facilities 
Engineering Command, Northwest, 1101 Tautog Circle, Suite 203, 
Silverdale, Washington 98315-1101, Attention: NWTT EIS/OEIS Project 
Manager.

    Dated: March 16, 2012.
J.M. Beal,
Lieutenant Commander, Office of the Judge Advocate, U.S. Navy, Federal 
Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-7018 Filed 3-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
Exhibit 32.1 - President Certification (Section 906)

                        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 Quarterly Report of TAM of Henderson, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").
I, Evagelina Esparza Barrza, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

               (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
                     result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Evagelina Esparza Barrza
----------------------------
    Evagelina Esparza Barrza
    President/Director


Date  May 10, 2006
      ------------


<PAGE>
#### Efrain SOLIVAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 84-2473.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 22, 1986.

Rehearing Denied June 9, 1986.

Gilmour, Morgan & Rosenblatt and Robert A. Rosenblatt, Miami, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Calvin L. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and JOR-GENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This case presents the same issue as that presented to this court in *Spiegel v. State,*356 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA), *cert. denied,*364 So.2d 891 (Fla.1978), and we affirm on that authority.

Because neither appellant nor appellee gave us the benefit of *Spiegel,*we invite them to review *Glassalum Engineering Corp. v. 392208 Ontario Ltd.,*487 So.2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA, opinion filed this date), and to mind their p’s and q’s.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

     The undersigned, Lorne Broten hereby certifies as follows:

     (a)  I am the Chief Financial Officer of Baxx Systems Inc., (the
          "Company");

     (b)  To the best of my knowledge, the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K
          for the year ended September 30, 2007 (the "Report") complies in all
          material respects with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (c)  To the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Report, the
          information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
          Company.

                                            Baxx Systems Inc.

Date:  December 10, 2007
                                            /S/ Lorne Broten
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Lorne Broten
                                            Chief Financial Officer

     This certificate accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 or any other provision 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.

Supplemental Information to be Furnished With Reports Filed Pursuant to Section
15(d) of the Act by Registrants Which Have Not Registered Securities Pursuant to
Section 12 of the Act

No annual report or proxy material has been sent to security holders of the
Company. The Company does not anticipate sending out a separate annual report or
proxy material to its security holders subsequent to the filing of the annual
report. In the event that the Company determines that it will send out either a
separate annual report or any proxy materials, the Company will furnish copies
of such material to the Securities and Exchange Commission when it is sent to
security holders.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 998

To amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to prohibit the donation or

service without charge of competitive foods of minimal nutritional value

in schools participating in Federal meal service programs before the

end of the last lunch period of the schools.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 11, 1999

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. FEINGOLD, and

Mr. KOHL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to prohibit the

donation or service without charge of competitive foods

of minimal nutritional value in schools participating in

Federal meal service programs before the end of the

last lunch period of the schools.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Better Nutrition for

5 School Children Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

7 The purposes of this Act are—
2

•S 998 IS

1 (1) to close the loophole that allows competitive

2 foods of minimum nutritional value that cannot be

3 sold during meals in schools participating in the

4 school breakfast and lunch programs to instead be

5 donated or served without charge to students during

6 or before breakfast or lunch;

7 (2) to protect 1 of the major purposes of the

8 Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et

9 seq.) and the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C.

10 1751 et seq.), which is to promote better nutrition

11 among school children participating in the school

12 breakfast and lunch programs; and

13 (3) to promote better nutritional habits among

14 school children and improve the health of school chil15 dren participating in the school breakfast and lunch

16 programs.

17 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON DONATION OR SERVICE WITHOUT

18 CHARGE OF COMPETITIVE FOODS OF MINI19 MAL NUTRITIONAL VALUE.

20 Section 10 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42

21 U.S.C. 1779) is amended—

22 (1) by striking ‘‘(b) The’’ and inserting the fol23 lowing:
3

•S 998 IS

1 ‘‘(b) DONATION OR SERVICE WITHOUT CHARGE OF

2 COMPETITIVE FOODS OF MINIMAL NUTRITIONAL

3 VALUE.—

4 ‘‘(1) SALES.—The’’; and

5 (2) by adding at the end the following:

6 ‘‘(2) DONATIONS OR SERVICE WITHOUT

7 CHARGE.—The regulations shall prohibit the dona8 tion or service without charge of competitive foods

9 not approved by the Secretary under paragraph (1)

10 in a school participating in a meal service program

11 authorized under this Act or the National School

12 Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) before the end

13 of the last lunch period of the school.’’.

Æ
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Rudolph WINGERT.

No. 88-KK-1767.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 28, 1988.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for clarification granted. At the new trial the prosecutor must establish a proper foundation for the admission of the videotape. Further, if the videotape contains inculpatory statements made by defendant during custodial interrogation, either the prosecutor must establish that defendant was advised of and waived his constitutional right to remain silent prior to interrogation or the pertinent video portion of the tape must be excluded.
----

**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**

|   | (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/                Freddie M. Kotek    |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  | Freddie                M. Kotek        |   |
|   | Title: | Chief                Executive Officer |   |
|   | Date:  | August                15, 2005         |   |

----
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 7757]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Snapshot: Painters and Photography, Bonnard to Vuillard” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Phillips Collection, Washington, DC, from on or about February 4, 2012, until on or about May 6, 2012, the Indianapolis Museum of Art, Indianpolis, IN, from on or about June 8, 2012, until on or about September 2, 2012, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to                               ( print page 2341)                            be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

Dated: January 11, 2012.

J. Adam Ereli,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2012-736 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 6
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 6
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 6
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 6
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 6
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 6