alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Susan M. Atkins, certifythat:
1. I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 29,2004 of IMPRESO, INC. (the “Report”);
2. Based on my knowledge, the Report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by the Report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in the Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in the Report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure 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 otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;
 b) Omitted in reliance on SEC Release No. 33-8238; 34-47986 Section III.E.];
 c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in the Report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by the Report based on such evaluation; and
 d) Disclosed in the Report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting;
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting.
6. Item 4 Controls and Procedures in the Company’s Form 10-Q isincorporated herein by reference.        Date: April 14, 2003 /s/ Susan M. Atkins   **Susan M. Atkins**   **Chief Financial Officer**
#### Ex parte Marlin Bland TURNER.

No. 28422.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 23, 1956.

Marlin Bland Turner pro se.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

Relator, an inmate of the Texas Prison System, seeks his release by writ of habeas corpus alleging that on November 21, 1952, he entered a plea of guilty in Cause No. 18,-680 in the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County and that at no time did the attorney representing the State execute a written consent for the petitioner to be tried without a jury as is required by Article 10a, V.A.C.C.P.

Upon application of the relator, this Court directed that the facts be developed and certified to this Court. This has been done, and they are almost identical in every respect to those reflected in Ex parte Foster, Tex.Cr.App., 283 S.W.2d 761, to which reference is here made.

*521We have again concluded that the relator has here shown a failure to comply with the terms of Article 10a.

The writ of habeas corpus is granted, and relator is ordered delivered to the Sheriff of Jefferson County to await the further orders of the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County in Cause No. 18,680.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23 - 40667 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Francisco Eduardo Briseno,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22 - CR - 138 - 2

**____________ __________________**  Before **Smith, Stewart,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Francisco Eduardo Briseno appeals his guilty plea convictions for conspiracy to transport undocumented aliens into or within the United States and conspiracy to conceal or harbor undocumented aliens . Briseno asserts that his guilty plea was not knowing an d voluntary because the district court committed error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 by failing to

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 12, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-40667 Document: 46-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2024No. 23 - 40667

2 advise him that he was subject to a $5,000 special assessment , on each count, under 18 U.S.C. § 3014(a). See **Fed. R. Crim. P .**  11(b)(1)(H) , (L) . We review Briseno’s Rule 11 argument, which was raised for the first time on appeal, for plain error. See United States v. Brown , 328 F.3d 787, 789 (5th Cir. 2003) . Even if the district court’s omission constitutes clear or obvious error, Briseno has no t shown that the failure to advise him of the possibility of the $5,000 special assessment s affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez , 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004) ; see also United States v. Hughes , 726 F.3d 656, 662 (5th Cir. 2013) . Thus, Briseno’s Rule 11 argument fails on plain error review. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). **AFFIRMED** . Case: 23-40667 Document: 46-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2024
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6642

DARRYL ORVETT PAYNE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-99-2065-2)

Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: August 4, 2000

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darryl Orvett Payne, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Darryl O. Payne seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because

Payne’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district

court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and

jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on February 9, 2000. Payne’s notice of appeal was filed on May 5, 2000.

Because Payne failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain

an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his pending

motion for appointment of counsel, deny 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
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-22-00018-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.D. and C.R., Children

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020PA01440

Honorable Elma T. Salinas Ender, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 13, 2022

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED

Appellant T.S. (“Mother”) appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her parental 

rights to her child C.R. and appointing Mother possessory conservator of her child T.D. Mother’s 

court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief containing a professional 

evaluation of the record, concluding there are no arguable grounds for reversal of the order. The 

brief satisfies the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M., 520 

S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (recognizing that Anders procedures apply in parental 

termination cases). Additionally, counsel represents that he provided Mother with a copy of the 

brief and the motion to withdraw, advised Mother of her right to review the record and file her

own brief, and informed Mother how to obtain a copy of the record, providing her with a form 
04-22-00018-CV

- 2 -

motion for access to the appellate record. We issued an order setting a deadline for Mother to file 

a pro se brief. However, Mother did not request the appellate record or file a pro se brief.

After reviewing the appellate record and appointed counsel’s brief, we conclude no 

plausible grounds exist for reversal of the termination order. Accordingly, we affirm the trial 

court’s termination order. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because it does not show good 

cause for withdrawal. See id. at 27 & n.7 (holding that counsel’s obligations in a parental 

termination case extend through exhaustion or waiver of all appeals and that withdrawal should be 

permitted by a court of appeals “only for good cause” (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 10)).

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
TRICCAR, Inc. 10-Q/A



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 Quarterly Report of TRICCAR, Inc. (the “ Company ”) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2020, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report
”), I, William Townsend, Chief Executive Officer and Director 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 my knowledge:



1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable;
and



2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.



|Dated
    this July 21, 2020 |                                         
|---------------------------- | ----------------------------------------
|                             |                                         
|By:                          | /s/
    William Townsend                
|                             | William Townsend,                       
|                             | Chief Executive
    Officer and Director





16
VI

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 379

For the relief of Richard W. Schaffert.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 9 (legislative day, JANUARY 30), 1995

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

the Committee on Finance

A BILL

For the relief of Richard W. Schaffert.

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

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The limitations set forth in sec5 tions 6511 and 6514(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of

6 1986 (relating to period of limitation on filing claim and

7 on allowance of credits or refunds for tax overpayment)

8 shall not apply to a claim filed by Richard W. Schaffert

9 of Lincoln, Nebraska, for credit or refund of an overpay10 ment of the individual Federal income tax Richard W.

11 Schaffert paid for the taxable year 1983.
2

S 379 IS

1 (b) DEADLINE.—Subsection (a) shall apply only if

2 Richard W. Schaffert submits a claim pursuant to such

3 subsection within the 1-year period beginning on the date

4 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131920 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131920 

 COA: 267672 

Wayne CC: 00-011714-01 

ALEXANDER L. FLIE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 27, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1218 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 28, 2006 

 Clerk
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2829

_____________________________

J.D., Father of W.S.D., Minor 

Child,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILIES,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

James P. Nilon, Judge.

November 1, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and BILBREY and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Audrie H. Hoehn of Audrie M. Harris, P.A., Gainesville, for 

Appellant.

Ward L. Metzger, Children’s Legal Services, Department of 

Children and Families, Jacksonville; Thomasina F. Moore, 

Statewide Director of Appeals, and Sara E. Goldfarb, Appellate 

Counsel, Guardian ad Litem Program, Tallahassee; and Beth 

Kathryn Roland, Defending Best Interests Project, Florida 

Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Orlando, for Appellee.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 IMPRESO, INC. CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned, Marshall D. Sorokwasz, Chief Executive Officer and President of IMPRESO,
INC. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:  1.
    The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended November 30, 2004 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and2.
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operation of the Company.3.
    Item 4 Controls and Procedures in the Companys Form 10-Q is incorporated
herein by reference. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is
not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 14th
day of January, 2005. /s/ Marshall D. SorokwaszName:
    
    Marshall D.
SorokwaszTitle:
    
    Chief
Executive Officer and President
 *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.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports included or incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K/A into the
Company's previously filed Registration Statements File Nos. 33-45015,
33-57519, 33-42561, 33-62257, 33-23294, 33-16585, 33-3827, 33-6604, 33-959,
2-91008, 33-40623, 33-46874, 33-46875 and 33-50628.


                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
February 18, 1997

<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                         809,288
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  214,063
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,515
<INVENTORY>                                    840,085
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,881,389
<PP&E>                                         173,820
<DEPRECIATION>                                 125,217
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,055,684
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          147,712
<BONDS>                                          5,911
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,128,780
<COMMON>                                       238,372
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,059,732
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,055,064
<SALES>                                      1,968,032
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,992,263
<CGS>                                          713,401
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,552,129
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                403,508
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            403,508
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   403,508
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MOSTAFA ARAM AZADPOUR,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 11

- 00309

- CR

Appeal from

County Criminal Court No. 8

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC # 1210111)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2013.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Antcliff, JJ.

Antcliff, J., not participating
Exhibit








	
	
	EXHIBIT 10.9






SECOND AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT 


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of September 30, 2015, by and between the Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines (“FHLBDM”), a federally chartered corporation and successor to Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (“FHLBS”), and Glen Simecek (“Executive”).
R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, FHLBS and the Executive entered into that certain Change in Control Agreement dated March 17, 2014, as amended on May 14, 2015 (the “Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Agreement may be amended by a writing signed by FHLBDM and the Executive; and
WHEREAS, FHLBDM and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:


A G R E E M E N T
Section 1.6 of the Agreement is hereby amended and replaced in its entirety with the following:
1.6.    “Good Reason Termination” shall mean Executive’s voluntary termination of his employment with FHLBDM for one of more of the following reasons:
		
	(a)
	the assignment of ongoing duties to Executive that are materially inconsistent with Executive’s position; or


(b)    any material diminution in the Executive’s authority or responsibilities; or
		
	(c)
	a material reduction in the Executive’s base salary, bonus opportunity under applicable incentive compensation plans, or retirement plan benefits, unless such reduction is made as part of a nondiscriminatory cost reduction plan applicable to the Company’s total compensation budget; or


		
	(d)
	a material change by FHLBDM in the geographic location at which the Executive is required to perform his services; or


		
	(e)
	a material diminution in the budget over which the Executive retains authority; or


(f)    a material breach of this agreement by the FHLBDM.











If  (i) Executive provides written notice to FHLBDM of the existence of circumstances that would justify a Good Reason Termination within (A) three hundred sixty five (365) days after Executive has knowledge of the circumstances pertaining to any of items (a), (b), or (d), or (B) ninety (90) days after Executive has knowledge of the circumstances pertaining to any of items (c), (e), or (f), which notice shall specifically identify the circumstances that Executive believes justify a Good Reason Termination; (ii) FHLBDM fails to correct the circumstances within thirty (30) days after receiving such notice; and (iii) Executive resigns within fifteen (15) days after the FHLBDM fails to correct such circumstances; then Executive’s termination shall be considered to have been a Good Reason Termination for purposes of this Agreement.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF DES MOINES
By:                        
Michael L. Wilson
President 


By:                        
Richard S.Swanson
Chief Executive Officer


EXECUTIVE
                        
Glen Simecek