alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2
    Certification of Principal FINANCIAL Officer pursuant to
          Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      I, Jack M. Gertino, Chief Financial Officer of Comet Technologies, Inc.
(the Registrant") certify that:

      1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Registrant;

      2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

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

      4.  The Registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and have:

          a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

          b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date
of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

          c)  presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

      5.  The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's auditors and the
audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

          a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for
the Registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

          b)  ny fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal
controls; and

     6.  The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in
this annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: April 12, 2004             /s/ Jack M. Gertino
                                 Jack M. Gertino, Chief Financial Officer
### Martin , Michae l (OST) Do" ^ -QS T- 300" ^

- 0 ^ IH " From : tor n henderson [tom.pearlofalaska@gmail.com ] ; " ,,I;C! ! Sent : Wednesday , Jun e 30 , 201 0 1:1 5 A M To : EA S (OST ) Subject : wing s of aiasi^a

Unite dState s Departmen t o f Transportatio n Essentia l Ai r

Servic e OST-2008-021 7 Dea r DOT , I liv e i n Kak e an dhav e bee n please dwith th e servic e provide db y Wing s o f Alaska
. Wing s ha s worke dwith th e community t o provid e efficien t an dcomfortabl e year-roun dservic e t o ou r community
. Wing s carava n servic e i s muc h neede db y providin g th e abilit y t o carry 3,00 0 pound s o f payload , meanin g the y can ge t 9 passenger s an dal l thei r

baggag e o n th e flight
. Thi s i s importan t a s ou r service s ar e limite dan dgettin g ou r baggage , cargo , an dmai l i s essentia l t o ou r community
. Weathe r

ha s alway s bee n achalleng e an dit' s reassurin g t o kno w tha t Wing s o f Alask aha s th e Medallio n Shield , earne db y operatin g wel l abov e safety standard s se t b y th e State
. Thoug h Wing s doe s hav e problem s maintainin g thei r schedul e a

t times , the y hav e bee n acommunit y friendl y airlin e an dhav e listene dt o thei r customers . Pleas e reselec t

Wing s o f

Alask at o serv e Kak e for th e nex t 2 years ! Than k you - To mHenderso n
Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 27 Filed: 10/05/18 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 753
Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 27 Filed: 10/05/18 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 754
Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 27 Filed: 10/05/18 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 755
Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 27 Filed: 10/05/18 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: 756
Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 27 Filed: 10/05/18 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: 757
Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 27 Filed: 10/05/18 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: 758
Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 27 Filed: 10/05/18 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 759
Case: 2:18-cr-00094-MHW Doc #: 4 Filed: 05/03/18 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: 14

Case: 2:18-cr-00094-MHW Doc #: 4 Filed: 05/03/18 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: 15
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 10, 2019

No. 04-19-00824-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.C.P.T., A CHILD,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-PA-00127

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of an order in a suit for termination of the parent-child 

relationship that must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of 

appeal was filed in the trial court. See TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. Appellant timely filed his notice 

of appeal and request for a reporter’s record on November 20, 2019, and served a copy on the 

court reporter, Elva Chapa. Accordingly, the reporter’s record was due ten days later on 

November 30, 2019. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b), 35.1(b). The record was not filed. On 

December 6, 2019, the reporter filed a notification of late record, requesting an extension of time 

until December 20, 2019 to file the record. 

We grant the motion in part and order the record due December 16, 2019. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 35.3(c) (extension of time to file record in accelerated appeal must not exceed 10 days). 

Because this is an appeal from the termination of parental rights, “the trial court must 

direct the official or deputy reporter to immediately commence the preparation of the reporter’s 

record. The trial court must arrange for a substitute reporter, if necessary.” TEX. R. APP. P.

28.4(b)(1). We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on the trial court. See

TEX .R. APP. P. 35.3(c) (“[t]he trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that 

the appellate record is timely filed”).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of December, 2019.
___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Helen Louise Torres,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:18-cv-573

Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court for consideration of the May

1, 2019, report and recommendation of the United States magistrate

judge to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b). 

The magistrate judge concluded that the administrative law judge

did not state good reasons for the weight he accorded to the

opinions of plaintiff’s treating physicians and therapist. The

magistrate judge recommended that the Commissioner’s non-disability

finding be reversed, and that this case be remanded to the

Commissioner and the administrative law judge for further

proceedings.

The report and recommendation specifically advised the parties

that failure to object to the report and recommendation within

fourteen days of the report “will result in a waiver of the right

to have the district judge review the Report and Recommendation de

novo” and a “waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the

District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.” Doc. 15,

p. 21. The time period for filing objections to the report and

recommendation has expired, and no party has objected to the report

and recommendation.
The court adopts the report and recommendation of the

magistrate judge (Doc. 15). The decision of the Commissioner is

reversed. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g), sentence four, this case

is remanded to the Commissioner and the administrative law judge

for further proceedings consistent with the report and

recommendation, including further consideration and discussion of

the opinions of Drs. Inman and Singh and Licensed Therapist Tiffany

DeHaven. The clerk shall enter judgment remanding this case to the

Commissioner.

Date: May 23, 2019 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge 

2
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 11

- 00 850

- CR IN RE Charles TAYLOR, Jr. Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 7, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On November 29, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the trial court to rule on his pro se mot ion for judgment nunc pro tunc. However, in order to be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must establish that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to perform a non

- discretionary act; (2) was asked to perform the act; and (3) failed or refused to do

so . In re Molina , 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). When a properly filed motion is pending before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is ministerial, and mandamus may issue to comp el the trial judge to act. See Safety

- Kleen Corp. v. Garcia , 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). However, mandamus will not issue unless the record indicates that a properly filed

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 1998

- CR

- 4843 , styled State of Texas v. Charles Taylor, Jr. , i n the 227 th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Philip Kazen presiding.04

- 11

- 00850

- CR

- 2

- motion has awaited disposition for an unre asonable amount of time. See id. Relator has the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief.
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.7(a) (“Relator must file with the petition [ ] a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”); see also T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A); Walker v. Packer , 82 7 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992). Here, relator asserts he filed his motion on October 17, 2011. However, he has not provided this court with a file stamped copy of the motion or any other documents to show that a properly filed motion is pending before th e trial court and has been brought to the trial court’s attention. Additionally, even if relator’s motion has been pending since October 17, 2011, we cannot say the motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable amount of time. Based on the foregoing, we conclude relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
Order filed, August 17, 2016

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00494

- CR

____________ MARTIN ANGEL RUIZ , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas Tr ial Court Cause No. 1447488



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due August 02, 2016

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Cynthia Lee , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his or her capacity as an officer of Manatron, Inc. (the "Company") that the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the accounting period ended April 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

This Certificate is given pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and for no other purpose.

|Date:  July 18, 2007 | /s/ Paul R. Sylvester                      
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------
|                     | Paul R. Sylvester
Chief Executive Officer  
|                     |                                            
|                     |                                            
|                     | /s/ G. William McKinzie                    
|                     | G. William McKinzie
President              
|                     |                                            
|                     |                                            
|                     | /s/ Krista L. Inosencio                    
|                     | Krista L. Inosencio
Chief Financial Officer
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 98 

Establishing the Congressional Gold Star Family Fellowship Program for 

the placement in offices of Senators of children, spouses, and siblings 

of members of the Armed Forces who are hostile casualties or who 

have died from a training-related injury. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 6, 2019 

Mrs. BLACKBURN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Rules and Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Establishing the Congressional Gold Star Family Fellowship 

Program for the placement in offices of Senators of 

children, spouses, and siblings of members of the Armed 

Forces who are hostile casualties or who have died from 

a training-related injury. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

3 This resolution may be cited as the ‘‘SFC Sean 

4 Cooley and SPC Christopher Horton Congressional Gold 

5 Star Family Fellowship Program Resolution’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 98 IS 

1 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD STAR FELLOWSHIP PRO2 GRAM. 

3 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

4 (1) the term ‘‘eligible individual’’ means an in5 dividual who is the child (including a stepchild), 

6 spouse, or sibling of a member of the Armed Forces 

7 who is a hostile casualty or died from a training-re8 lated injury; 

9 (2) the terms ‘‘hostile casualty’’ and ‘‘training10 related injury’’ have the meanings given those terms 

11 in section 2402(b) of title 38, United States Code; 

12 and 

13 (3) the term ‘‘Program’’ means the Congres14 sional Gold Star Family Fellowship Program estab15 lished under subsection (b). 

16 (b) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the 

17 Senate the Congressional Gold Star Family Fellowship 

18 Program, under which an eligible individual may serve a 

19 12-month fellowship in the office of a Senator. 

20 (c) DIRECTION OF PROGRAM.—The Program shall be 

21 carried out under the direction of the Secretary of the 

22 Senate. 

23 (d) PLACEMENT IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE

24 OR A STATE OFFICE.—An individual may serve a fellow25 ship under the Program at the office of a Senator in the 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 98 IS 

1 District of Columbia or an office of the Senator in the 

2 State the Senator represents. 

3 (e) REGULATIONS.—The Program shall be carried 

4 out in accordance with regulations promulgated by the 

5 Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 112 Filed 10/03/2005 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Case No. 1:01-cv- 116

(Judge Sandra S. Beckwith)

Plaintiff

ORDER GRANTING FIRST MOTION

TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF FEES AND

REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES TO

GREENEBAUM DOLL &MCDONALD

PLLC

STEPHEN G. DONAHUE, and

DONAHUE SECURITIES, INC.

Defendants.

This action comes before the Court on the First Motion to Approve Payment of Fees and

Reimbursement of Greenebaum Doll & McDonald PLLC filed December 6, 2005 and the

memorandum in support thereof and the pleadings and papers of record in this action.

The Court is of the opinion that said motion is well taken and should be granted and

therefore it is hereby

ORDERED, that the motion is granted and payment by the Receiver of fees and

reimbursement of expenses to Greenebaum Doll & McDonald PLLC for the period January 20

2004 through November 29 2005 in the total amount of$14 226.58 is approved; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Receiver pay said total of $14 226.58 to Greenebaum Doll &

McDonald PLLC out of funds in the hands of the Receiver.

SO ORDERED.

Sandra S. Beckwith

United States District Judge

Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 115-4 Filed 12/06/2005 Page 1 of 2
Submitted by:

Isl Richard Bovdston

Richard Boydston (22360)

Attorney for Michael R. Barrett, Receiver

Greenebaum Doll & McDonald PLLC

255 East Fifth Street #2800

Cincinnati, OH 45202-4728

phone: 513.455. 7663

fax: 513.762.7963

email: rb2(?Ygdm.com

641457

Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 115-4 Filed 12/06/2005 Page 2 of 2
#### People v Harvey,

No. 90979.

Motion to waive fees is granted. Court of Appeals No. 127884.
IV 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 15 

Expressing the sense of Congress that hydropower is an essential renewable 

resource and the United States should protect existing hydropower resources. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2021 

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington (for herself, Mr. NEWHOUSE, Ms. HERRERA

BEUTLER, Mr. FULCHER, and Mr. SIMPSON) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that hydropower is an 

essential renewable resource and the United States 

should protect existing hydropower resources. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That is the sense of the Congress that— 

3 (1) hydropower is a renewable resource for pur4 poses of all Federal programs and is an essential 

5 source of energy in the United States; and 

6 (2) the United States should protect existing 

7 hydropower resources and increase substantially the 

8 capacity and generation of clean, renewable hydroVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:23 Feb 06, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HC15.IH HC15

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 15 IH 

1 power resources to address a changing climate and 

2 improve environmental quality in the United States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7440

VAN ANTHONY ROSE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:04-cr-00194-RJC-CH-1; 3:08-cv00216-RJC)

Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 20, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Van Anthony Rose, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Van Anthony Rose seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Rose has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we 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 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 13-1438

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DIRK LANIEL BARFIELD, JR.,

a/k/a Little D

Dirk Laniel Barfield, Jr.,

 Appellant

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 09-cr-00093-001)

District Judge: Honorable Nora B. Fischer

____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 14, 2013

Before: HARDIMAN, SHWARTZ and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: November 18, 2013)

____________

OPINION

____________

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

Dirk Barfield, Jr., appeals an order of the District Court denying his motion for a 
2

sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B). We will affirm for the reasons 

explained by the District Court.

I

Simply stated, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA) does not apply to those 

whose offense conduct, conviction, and sentence predate its enactment. As the District 

Court rightly noted: “the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit have 

made clear that the Fair Sentencing Act . . . does not apply to defendants such as Barfield 

who were sentenced before its effective date.” App. 11. In support of its decision the 

District Court cited Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012), and United States v. 

Turlington, 696 F.3d 425 (3d Cir. 2012). Despite the fact that Dorsey involved a 

defendant who was sentenced after the effective date of the FSA, Barfield argues that he 

is entitled to relief under that case. But Barfield fails to address our decision in 

Turlington, in which we stated that Dorsey “does not address, or disturb, the basic 

principle that the FSA does not apply to those defendants who were both convicted and 

sentenced prior to the effective date of the FSA.” 696 F.3d at 428. Indeed, Turlington

reaffirmed our prior holding in United States v. Reevey, 631 F.3d 110 (3d Cir. 2010), that 

the FSA does not provide “that those sentenced before the FSA’s effective date are to be 

re-sentenced.” Id. at 115; see Turlington, 696 F.3d at 428.
3

II

Like the defendant in Turlington, Barfield was both convicted and sentenced prior 

to the enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act on August 3, 2010. Accordingly, the FSA is 

unavailing to Barfield and we will affirm the order of the District Court.