alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT - 31.3**

MOSSIMO, INC.

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIALOFFICER

I, Vicken Festekjian, Chief FinancialOfficer of the registrant, certify that:

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

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor 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 and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant is, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, made known to us by others, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(c)              Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d)             Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s first fiscal quarter) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a)              All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

(b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
| /s/ VICKEN FESTEKJIAN   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Vicken Festekjian       |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| August 14, 2006         |

 

----
#### DEUTSCHEN HANDELS UND PLANTAGEN-GESELLSCHAFT DER SUDSEEINSEIN ZU HAMBURG, Plaintiff v. THOMAS MEREDITH and MRS. A. T. MEREDITH, Defendants

No. 1-1916

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division

February 17, 1916

A. STRONACH, *Judge President;*MOLIOO, *Member;*ALEX B. HAYWOOD, P.A. Surgeon, U.S.N., *Member*

The transactions which form the basis for this action are as follows:—

The defendant, Thomas Meredith, purchased, through one C. R. Shoup, an Engine for his vessel, the “ANNIE”, from the Anderson Engine Company. The purchase price of this engine was Thirteen Hundred and Fifty-two Dollars and eighty-five cents ($1,852.85), of which Four Hundred Dollars ($400.00) was paid before the Engine was shipped. The Bill of Lading and instructions, sent by the Anderson Engine Company, that the Engine was not to be delivered until the balance due was paid, did not arrive until several weeks after the Engine, and upon the defendant, Thomas Meredith, executing a letter of Indemnity to the Deutschen Handels und Plantagen-Gesellschaft der Sudseeinsein zu Hamburg, the Plaintiff, which Company is the Agent of the carrier, The Oceanic Steamship Company, the Engine was delivered to said Thomas Meredith. The balance due at the time of the delivery, together with freight, amounted to Eleven Hundred and Twenty-one Dollars and eight cents ($1,121.08). The sum of Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($750.00) was paid upon the purchase price, after the receipt of the Engine, but the vessel having been wrecked *282and a balance of Three Hundred and Seventy-one Dollars and eight cents ($371.08) remaining unpaid, demand was made by the Anderson Engine Company upon the Oceanic Steamship Company for this amount and the Oceanic Steamship Company in turn- demanded payment from its agent, the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff paid the balance of Three Hundred and Seventy-one Dollars and eight cents ($371.08) on February 1st, 1915, a.nd now seeks to recover this amount with interest from that date, from Thomas Meredith and Annie T. Meredith, his wife. There can be no doubt about the liability of Thomas Meredith, for he' executed the letter of Indemnity, received the Engine} and made payments upon it. There is no evidence to show that the defendant, Annie T. Meredith, was a party, or in any way connected with the original transaction, or that she subsequently assumed any liability for any part of the purchase price of the Engine. The action is therefore dismissed as to the said Annie T. Meredith. As to the other defendant, Thomas Meredith, the judgment of the Court is that the Plaintiff, the D. H. & P. G. Co., recover of the said Thomas Meredith, the sum of Three Hundred, and Seventy-one Dollars and eight cents ($371.08), with interest at the rate of 8 % per annum on that amount, from February 1st, 1915, until paid, and that he be taxed with the costs in the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00).
#### Leslie J. DAVIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Brad LIVINGSTON; Bryan Collier; Matt Gross; Kevin Wheat; Billy Reeves, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-40732 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 29, 2017

Leslie J. Davis, Jr., Pro Se

*227Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Leslie J. Davis, Jr., Texas prisoner # 676293, appeals an order by the Únited States District Court for the Southern District of Texas transferring his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). We lack jurisdiction to review this non-final decision. *See In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,*545 F.3d 304, 319 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc); *Askanase v. Livingwell, Inc.,*981 F.2d 807, 809-10 (5th Cir. 1993). Instead, a petition for writ of mandamus is the appropriate means for contesting the order. *See Volkswagen,*545 F.3d at, 308-09. The appeal is DISMISSED, and the motion for an order holding the defendants in contempt is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir, R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under, the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Edward Shoshensky, Hymie Pernick, Sam Keller and Jewish Kosher Provision Co. (a Corporation), Appellants.

Argued March 2, 1943;

decided April 8, 1943.

*686
      *S. Stanley Kreutser, Martin H. Selman*and *Samuel D. Smoleff*for appellants.

*Thomas Cradock Hughes, Acting District Attorney (William I. Siegel*and *Henry J. Walsh*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgments affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Pinch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
CHECK LIST #1

PRE-FLIGHT:

1. AREA CLEAR OF WIRES, POLES, TREES _____

2. sUAS HARDWARE INSPECTION _____

3. PROPS TIGHT _____

4. BATTERY VOLTAGES 100% _____

5. RC SWITCH POSITIONS _____

6. FLIGHT MODE SELECTED _____

7. TELEMETRY DISPLAYED _____

8. GPS LOCK _____

9. CAMERA ENABLED _____

10. AREA “CLEAR” FOR LAUNCH _____

11. WIND DIRECTION NOTED _____

12. TIMER RESET _____

13. TIMER ALARM SET _____

IMMEDIATELY AFTER TAKE OFF:

1. TEST STICK INPUTS, sUAS REACTION _____

2. EXIT “INNER CIRCLE” AND SWITCH FROM “NORMAL/STABLE” MODE

TO FLIGHT MODE MISSION SPECIFIC _____

3. TEST “FAIL SAFE” MODE (RTL, RETURN TO LAUNCH) _____

4. CANCEL “FAIL SAFE” AND LAND AIRCRAFT _____

 TESTING FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS COMPLETE, READY TO LAUNCH MISSION

 
CHECK LIST #2

PRE-LANDING CHECK LIST:

1. LANDING ZONE “CLEAR” OF HAZARDS _____

2. SELECT “NORMAL/STABLE” FLIGHT MODE _____

3. WIND CHECK _____

4. STABLE APPROACH AND LAND _____

POST LANDING CHECK LIST:

1. THROTTLE STICK DOWN/ZERO POWER _____

2. DISCONNECT sUAS FLIGHT BATTERY _____

3. POWER OFF RC CONTROLLER _____

4. SECURE sUAS TO A SAFE LOCATION _____

 5. sUAS HARDWARE INSPECTION _____

EMERGENCY OR SUSPECTED HAZARD:

IMMEDIATELY LAND sUAS AT SAFEST AND CLOSEST GROUND LOCATION IN THE EVENT:

! MANNED AIRCRAFT IS HEARD OR SEEN IN VICINITY OF FLIGHT.

! THERE IS A PUBLIC GATHERING WITHIN ESTABLISHED SAFETY BOUNDRY WANTING 

 TO OBSERVE FLIGHT.

! PILOT IS BEING DISTRACTED FROM FOCUSING ON FLIGHT AND SAFETY.

! SUDDEN CHANGE/INCREASE IN VEHICULAR TRAFFIC IN VICINITY OF FLIGHT.

! BIRDS ENTER INTO PROXIMITY OF FLIGHT.

! ANY SUDDEN UNSAFE EVENT THAT CAN CAUSE COLLISION/DISTRACTION/INTERUPPTION

 OF CONTROL
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 59 (Monday, March 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 17121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7219]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9286-7; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2011-0050]

Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related 
Photochemical Oxidants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of extension of public comment.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing an extension of the public comment period 
for the first external review draft of a document titled, ``First 
External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and 
Related Photochemical Oxidants'' (EPA/600/R-10/076A). The original 
Federal Register notice announcing the public comment period was 
published on February 28, 2011 (76 FR 10893). This assessment document 
was developed by the National Center for Environmental Assessment 
(NCEA) within EPA's Office of Research and Development as part of the 
review of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone.

DATES: The public comment period began on February 28, 2011, and ends 
May 5, 2011. Comments must be received by EPA by May 5, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The ``First External Review Draft Integrated Science 
Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants'' will be 
available primarily via the Web page under the Recent Additions and 
Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited number of CD-
ROM or paper copies will be available. Contact Ms. Debbie Wales by 
phone (919-541-4731), facsimile (919-541-5078), or e-mail 
(wales.deborah@epa.gov) to request either of these, and please provide 
your name, your mailing address, and the document title, ``First 
External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and 
Related Photochemical Oxidants'' (EPA/600/R-10/076A) to facilitate 
processing of your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information, contact Dr. 
James Brown, NCEA; telephone: 919-541-0765; facsimile: 919-541-1818; or 
e-mail: Brown.James@epa.gov.
    Comments may be submitted electronically via http://www.regulations.gov, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/
courier. Please follow the detailed instructions provided in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of Federal Register Notice (76 FR 
10893).
    For information on submitting comments to the docket, please 
contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket; telephone: 202-
566-1752; facsimile: 202-566-1753; or e-mail: ORD.Docket@epa.gov.

    Dated: March 22, 2011.
Darrell A. Winner,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2011-7219 Filed 3-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### Gurvir Singh SAMRA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-72854

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 16, 2017

Alan M. Kaufman, Esquire, Kaufman & Kaufman, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Gregory A. Pennington, Jr., Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S, Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gurvir Singh Samra, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency found Samra established past persecution, but his presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution was rebutted with evidence that Samra could safely and reasonably relocate within India to avoid harm. Substantial evidence supports this finding. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3); *Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal relocation finding supported even in the face of somewhat contradictory or ambiguous background information). We reject Samra’s contentions that the agency’s analysis was insufficient. Thus, his asylum claim fails.

In this case, because Samra failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Samra’s CAT claim because Samra did not demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured in India by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government. *See Alphonsus v.**574*Holder,*705 F.3d 1031, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2013).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Evagelina Esparza Barrza, CFO, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of eClic, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this amended 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 amended 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. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to
us by others within the Corporation, particularly during the period in which
this annual report is being prepared;

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

c) disclosed in this report any change in  the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during  the registrant's most
recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect,  the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

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

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

Date:  June 11, 2004                     /s/ Evagelina Esparza Barrza
--------------------                     ----------------------------
                                             Evagelina Esparza Barrza
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6188 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6188

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 2024

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 420 Highway 17 North in Surfside Beach, South Carolina, as the 
              ``Nancy Yount Childs Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. NANCY YOUNT CHILDS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 420 Highway 17 North in Surfside Beach, South Carolina, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Nancy Yount Childs Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Nancy 
Yount Childs Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tomas MARTINEZ-VIDAURRI, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40558 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Tomas Martinez-Vidaurri, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Tomas Martinez-Vidaurri has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez-Vidaurri has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further' responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

**Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David White, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 630]

*544Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Gazzillo, J.), rendered January 23, 2003, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

When the defendant failed to comply with the condition of his plea agreement that he appear on the scheduled sentencing date, the County Court was no longer bound by the original plea agreement and had the right to impose a greater sentence *(see People v Figgins,*87 NY2d 840 [1995]; *People v Delatorre,*306 AD2d 419 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 619 [2003]). Moreover, as the defendant was aware that he faced an enhanced sentence if he failed to comply with the plea agreement, the enhanced sentence was appropriate *(see People v Delatorre, supra*at 420; *People v Walters,*273 AD2d 418 [2000]). A general waiver of the right to appeal, which is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, encompasses the claim that the term of imprisonment imposed under an enhanced sentence is harsh and excessive where, as here, the defendant was informed that a maximum sentence could be imposed if he failed to comply with the conditions of the plea agreement *(see People v Ortiz,*295 AD2d 449 [2002]; *People v Miles,*268 AD2d 489 [2000]). Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.