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

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a)**

**UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

I, Subhash C. Sarda, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of NOVT Corporation; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does notcontain 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 thisannual report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairlypresent 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 annual report. 

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

(a) designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

(b) [Intentionally Omitted];

(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annualreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date:March 31, 2006
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven E. SHAFER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6129.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 29, 2003.

Timothy W. Ogilvie, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Beverley Quarles Watts, Philip O. Watts, Watts *&*Watts, Oklahoma City, OK, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before EBEL, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unani*521mously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Steven E. Shafer was convicted of the knowing receipt of videotapes transmitted through interstate commerce that depicted minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). He did not appeal his conviction, but did file a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 attacking his sentence. The district court denied relief in an order dated March 29, 2002, *see*R., Vol. I at 185-94, and also failed to issue a certificate of appealability, which we deem a denial of the same. *See United States v. Kennedy,*225 F.3d 1187, 1193 n. 3 (10th Cir.2000).

Shafer must obtain a certificate of ap-pealability to pursue his appeal in this court, as required by the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. *See id.*at 1193. Before we grant the certificate, he “must make a ‘substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.’” *See id.*(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)). On appeal, Shafer raises three issues. He argues that: 1) he was wrongly denied proper notice of certain additional conditions of his supervised release, 2) his receipt of the videotapes did not implicate interstate commerce, and 3) his counsel’s representation was ineffective in four ways.

After careful consideration of Shafer’s arguments and the record on appeal in light of applicable law, we conclude that he has not demonstrated entitlement to a certificate of appealability under the above standard. His request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
EXHIBIT 32.2 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 Annual Report of Trimol Group Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned
Chief Financial Officer of the Company 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 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 as of and for the
periods covered in the Report. /s/ Jack
  BravermanJack
  BravermanChief
  Financial OfficerTRIMOL
  GROUP, INC.April 17,
  2007 37
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 notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

                    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at                     *https://www.federalreserve.gov/​foia/​request.htm.*                     Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.                

Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than February 12, 2024.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago*                     (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President)  230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414. Comments can also be sent electronically to                     *Comments.applications@chi.frb.org:*

                    1.                     *Castle Creek Capital Partners VI, LP, San Diego, California;*                     to acquire voting shares of Tri-County Financial Group, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First State Bank, both of Mendota, Illinois.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Michele Taylor Fennell,

Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2024-01602 Filed 1-25-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Exhibit 32.2




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 Quarterly Report of GlobeTrac Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John daCosta, Chief Financial Officer 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:




(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 represents, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






/s/John daCosta


John daCosta
 Chief Financial Officer


August 10, 2010
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1933

To authorize a certificate of documentation for certain vessels, and for other

purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 9, 1996

Mr. GRAHAM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To authorize a certificate of documentation for certain

vessels, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTIFICATES OF DOCUMENTATION.

4 Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

5 Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), section 8 of the Act of

6 June 19, 1886 (24 Stat. 81, chapter 421; 46 U.S.C. App.

7 289), and sections 12106 through 12108 of title 46, Unit8 ed States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue

9 a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorse-
2

•S 1933 IS

1 ment for employment in the coastwise trade for each of

2 the following vessels:

3 (1) The vessel RELENTLESS, United States

4 official number 287008.

5 (2) The vessel TECUMSEH, United States of6 ficial number 668633.

7 (3) The vessel POLICY MAKER III, United

8 States official number 569223.

9 (4) The vessel QUIET SQUAW, United States

10 official number 998717.

Æ
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.6


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Schedule 14A and Schedule 13E-4 of our report dated August
22, 1994, included in Comprehensive Care Corporation's Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended May 31, 1996, as amended.  It should be noted that we
have not audited any financial statements of the Company subsequent to May 31,
1994, or performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report.


  /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

St. Louis, Missouri,
November 7, 1996
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Terax Energy, 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, Lawrence Finn, Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
  Act of 2002, to my knowledge 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 result of operations of the Company.

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



/s/ Lawrence J. Finn
  Lawrence J. Finn 
  President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) 
  and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

May 25, 2006

---
steam_record - Fw: EGU NSPS Rulemaking - Extension Request of Westmoreland Partners 

 

-----Forwarded by Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US on 07/02/2010 09:16PM ----- 

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: "Sullivan, Sean" <ssullivan@williamsmullen.com> 

Date: 06/25/2010 02:15PM 

cc: Maryt Smith/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Subject: EGU NSPS Rulemaking - Extension Request of Westmoreland Partners 

 <<ROVA CWA Extension Request.pdf>> 

Jezebele, 

Attached is a pdf copy of Westmoreland Partners' request for an 

extension of the deadline to respond to EPA's Information Collection

Request in support of the EGU Effluent Limitation rulemaking. 

 Please 

contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter 

further. 

Thanks. 

Sean M. Sullivan 

Williams Mullen 

A Professional Corporation 

301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1700 

Raleigh, NC 27601 

Office: (919) 981-4312 

Cell: (703) 405-6323 

ssullivan@williamsmullen.com 

From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: <steam_record@erg.com>, <jordan.ronald@epa.gov>

Date: 7/2/2010 8:17 PM

Subject: Fw: EGU NSPS Rulemaking - Extension Request of Westmoreland Partners

Attachments: ROVA CWA Extension Request.pdf

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C2E4955DO... 2/23/2011
#### In the matter of CHARLES TURNDORF, an attorney and counsellor at law.

Argued November 22, 1948,

For the rule: *Mr. William W. Evans.*

For the respondent: *Mr. Herbert J. Hannoch.*

January 3, 1949.

Reprimand of respondent ordered, Opinion reported at 1 N. J. 228.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence Edward HAMMOCK, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. *702United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence Edward Hammock, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 02-7755, 02-7818.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 6, 2003.

Decided Feb. 12, 2003.

Terrence Edward Hammock, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Terrance Edward Hammock, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying him a certifícate of appealability. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000); *see Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Hammock has not made the requisite showing. *See United States v. Hammock,*Nos. CR-98-512-L; CA-02-2057-L (D. Md. filed Oct. 18, 2002 & entered Oct. 21, 2002; Nov. 22, 2002). Accordingly, we deny Hammond’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
#### Patricia Jean BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTRAL COMMUNITY HEALTH BOARD, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-3857.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Jan. 29, 2003.

Before BATCHELDER, MOORE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

Patricia Jean Brown, an Ohio resident proceeding pro se, appeals the district court order dismissing her civil action. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Seeking $100,000 in damages, Brown sued the Central Community Health Board (CCHB) of Cincinnati, Ohio, in November 2001. Brown alleged that she had been treated by the CCHB “some years ago,” and that the CCHB did not give her proper support and did not properly monitor her mental health treatment. The CCHB moved to dismiss Brown’s complaint for failure to state a claim. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The magistrate judge recommended granting CCHB’s motion. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation over Brown’s objections and dismissed the complaint.

In her timely appeal, Brown argues that: (1) the district court misrepresented the facts of her case; and (2) the CCHB was negligent in its treatment of her and violated her rights as a patient.

This court reviews de novo a district court’s decision to dismiss a suit pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). *See Bloch v. Ribar,*156 F.3d 673, 677 (6th Cir.1998); *Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville,*99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir.1996). The court must construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept all of the factual allegations as true, and determine whether the plaintiff undoubtedly can prove no set of facts in support of her claims that would entitle her to relief. *See Sistrunk,*99 F.3d at 197.

Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Brown’s complaint for failure to state a claim because the complaint did not support any legal theory of recovery. *See Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc.,*859 F.2d 434, 436 (6th Cir.1988). Brown’s allegations that CCHB negligently treated her cannot constitute a diversity negligence action because the pleadings show that both Brown and the CCHB are citizens of Ohio. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1332. Brown’s allusion to her rights as a patient could be construed as a civil rights claim. However, she failed to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because she did not identify any federal right to proper mental health treatment. *See Flagg Bros. v. Brooks,*436 U.S. 149, 155-57, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978).

Construing liberally Brown’s pro se complaint and accepting her factual allegations as true, she can prove no set of facts in support of her claims that would entitle *324her to relief. *See Haines v. Kemer,*404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); *Sistrunk,*99 F.3d at 197. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s order. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 
 AGREEMENT 
 This Agreement is entered into as of November 1, 2011 by
and among Advant-e Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Advant-e”), Edict Systems, Inc., an Ohio corporation (“Edict Systems”) and Jon Asian LLC, an Ohio limited liability company (“Jon Asian”). 

WHEREAS Edict and Jon Asian entered into that certain Lease Agreement dated as of November 1, 2011 (the “Lease”) wherein
Jon Asian agreed to rent the building and land located at 2434 Esquire Drive, Beavercreek, Ohio 45431 (the “Premises”) to Edict Systems for a period of five (5) years; 

WHEREAS Edict Systems is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Advant-e, and the Premises shall be the principal place of business of Advant-e;

 WHEREAS, Jason K. Wadzinski is the sole member of Jon Asian, the President, CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors of
Advant-e and Edict Systems, and the owner of more than 54% of the issued and outstanding shares of Advant-e; 
 WHEREAS, the
parties desire to protect the interests of the minority shareholders of Advant-e; 
 Now, therefore, for good and valuable
consideration, the parties agree as follows: 
 1. Edict Systems and Jon Asian agree not to alter or amend in any way the terms
and conditions of the Lease without the prior written approval of Advant-e acting on behalf of Edict Systems. The parties further agree that Advant-e’s approval of any amendment to the Lease will require the approval by more than 75% of the
shareholders of Advant-e. 
 2. The parties agree not to alter or amend in any way the terms and conditions of this Agreement
except in a written instrument signed by the parties to this Agreement that has been approved by more than 75% of the shareholders of Advant-e. 
 3. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the law of the State of Ohio. 
 The parties have executed this Agreement on February 3, 2012. 
 JON ASIAN, LLC 

 

			
		
	By:	 	/s/ Jason K. Wadzinski
		 	Jason K. Wadzinski
		 	Sole Member








 EDICT SYSTEMS, INC. 
  

			
	By:	 	/s/ Jason K. Wadzinski
		 	Jason K. Wadzinski
		 	President, CEO and Chairman of the Board

  

			
	By:	 	/s/ James E. Lesch
		 	James E. Lesch
		 	Chief Financial Officer and Board Member

  

			
	ADVANT-E CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ Jason K. Wadzinski
		 	Jason K. Wadzinski
		 	President, CEO and Chairman of the Board

  

			
	By:	 	/s/ James E. Lesch
		 	James E. Lesch
		 	Chief Financial Officer and Board Member


  
 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Gladstone CapitalCorporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies on the date hereof, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June30, 2005 (“Form 10-Q”), filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information containedin the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:  August 3, 2005

 

 
| /s/ David Gladstone     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| David Gladstone         |
| Chief Executive Officer |

 

----