alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2  PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Kenneth W. Bell, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Pacific WebWorks, Inc.;  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 statement made, in light of the circumstances under which 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 report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and 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 small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.     Date: March 29, 2007 /s/ Kenneth W. Bell Kenneth W. Bell
#### Teresa CUATZO-NIEVES, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-2038

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 10, 2017

Decided: November 7, 2017

Teresa Cuatzo-Nieves, Petitioner Pro Se. Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Sunah Lee, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Teresa Cuatzo-Nieves, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her application for cancellation of removal. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the petition for review.

' Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)© (2012), entitled “Denials of discretionary relief,” “no court shall have jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section ... 1229b,” which is the section governing cancellation of removal. In this case, the immigration *285judge found, and the Board agreed, that Cuatzo-Nieves failed to meet her burden of establishing that her United States citizen children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if she is returned to Mexico. We conclude that this determination is clearly discretionary in nature, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review challenges to this finding absent a colorable constitutional claim or question of law. *See Sattani v. Holder,*749 F.3d 368, 372 (5th Cir. 2014) (finding no jurisdiction to review determination that aliens failed to demonstrate requisite hardship to their U.S. citizen son); *Obioha v. Gonzales,*431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir. 2005) (“It is quite clear that the gatekeeper provision [of § 1252(a)(2)(B)©] bars our jurisdiction to review a decision of the [Board] to actually deny a petition for cancellation of removal.”); *Okpa v. INS,*266 F.3d 313, 317 (4th Cir. 2001) (concluding, under transitional rules, that issue of hardship is committed to agency discretion and is not subject to appellate review).

We have reviewed Cuatzo-Nieves’ claims of error and conclude that she fails to raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). *See Gomis v. Holder,*571 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]bsent a *colorable*constitutional claim or question of law, our review of the issue is not authorized by § 1252(a)(2)(D).” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DISMISSED*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

Order 

July 6, 2021

161932-3 (70)

In re Application of DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY

to Increase Rates.

_________________________________________

RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER GROUP,

Appellant,

v SC: 161932

COA: 344811

MPSC: 00-018255

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE 

COMMISSION and MICHIGAN CABLE 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION,

Appellees,

and

DTE ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Petitioner-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

In re Application of CONSUMERS ENERGY

COMPANY to Increase Rates.

_________________________________________

RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER GROUP,

Appellant,

v SC: 161933

COA: 344821

MPSC: 00-018322

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE 

COMMISSION and MICHIGAN CABLE 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION,

Appellees,

and

CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY,

Petitioner-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/
I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 July 6, 2021

a0628

2

Clerk

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 30, 

2021 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0                  69,930
<SECURITIES>                                         0                  11,561
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                  37,032
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                   6,678
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                 135,772
<PP&E>                                               0                  37,604
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                 499,561
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                 130,682
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                     347
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                 333,247
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                 333,594
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,406                  90,040
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,060                  82,001
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  57                 (1,192)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,289                   9,231
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,893                   4,119
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,396                   5,112
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,396                   5,112
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26                    0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26                    0.16
        

</TABLE>
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Therefore, this case is ordered submitted without oral argument. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June 24, 2009 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

MONTGOMERY CARL AKERS, Plaintiff–Appellant, No. 08–1471 v. (D.C. No. 08–CV–02572–ZLW) ZITA L. WEINSHIENK; BOYD N. BOLAND; ROBERT M. BLACKBURN; RON WILEY; JACK FOX; CHRISTOPHER SYNSVOLL; DIANA J. CRIST; MICHELLE BOND; WENDY HEIM; RICK MARTINEZ; C/O ROY; C/O HERMAN; MARK COLLINS; TENA SUDLOW; GEORGE KNOX, (D. Colo.)

Defendants–Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HARTZ , McKAY , and O’BRIEN , Circuit Judges.

This Bivensaction was dismissed sua sponte by a district court judge named as a defendant. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5), a judge must recuse when-2- named as a party to a proceeding. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND this case for reassignment to a judge not named as a party in the complaint. This order neither makes nor implies any view about the appropriate disposition after reassignment.
We GRANT Plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and remind him of his continuing obligation to make partial payments until the filing fee has been paid in full. We DENY all other pending motions. Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Derian Douglas Hickman, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff, 

v. Civil Action No. 

Bank of America et aI., 

Defendants. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

JUN 1 5 2010 

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy 

Courts for the District of Columbia 

10 1006 

The plaintiff, Derian Douglas Hickman, filed a pro se complaint and application to 

proceed without prepayment of fees. Hickman's application to proceed without prepayment of 

fees will be granted, the complaint will be dismissed as frivolous, and the plaintiff will be 

directed to show cause in writing why he should not be prospectively barred from filing without 

prepayment of fees. 

Hickman, known to this court from prior frivolous and otherwise defective filings, has 

filed the instant complaint against Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, and Wells Fargo 

Bank, alleging as follows: 

Requesting return of previous account holdings money and any safe 

deposit box contents[.] Also over 1000 dollars in overdraft charges from J.P. 

Morgan Chase. And documents involving previous business rev(:nue. At close to 

1,000,000 stolen from my Bank of America account card. Requesting trial by 

jury[.] Asking for documents and amount due. 

Compi. at 1. 

Such a complaint not only fails to meet the minimum requirements of Rule 8(a) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but also appears to be based on fantastic and delusional 
premIses. Complaints describing fantastic or delusional scenarios are subject to immediate 

dismissal as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 

328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Accordingly, this complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. 

Including this one, the plaintiff has filed 17 complaints since February of2009, each of 

which warranted immediate dismissal, either because it did not meet the minimum requirements 

of Rule 8 or because it was frivolous. This pattern of filing results in an unwarranted 

consumption of judicial resources. The plaintiff was warned previously that if he persisted in 

filing frivolous or otherwise defective complaints, the Court could limit or deny his ability to 

proceed without prepayment of fees. See Slip. op., Derian Douglas HicAman v. Derian Douglas 

Hicman Archives et al., Civil Action No. 10-12, at 2 (D.D.C. Jan. 6,2010). Accordingly, the 

plaintiff will be required to show cause in writing why he should not be barred prospectively 

from filing without prepayment of the filing fee. 

A separate, related order accompanies this memorandum opinion. 

Uni 

- 2 -
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-17-00367-CV 

MARY LEE COWDEN, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

DORIS AKERS AND CARL REX CORDELL, APPELLEES 

 

On Appeal from the 251st District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. V-102326-00-C, Honorable Ana Estevez, Presiding 

 

February 22, 2018 

 

ORDER OF ABATEMENT 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ. 

Appellant, Mary Lee Cowden, and Appellees, Doris Akers and Carl Rex Cordell, 

filed a Joint Motion for Briefing Schedule requesting that we extend the briefing deadlines 

until thirty days after the parties mediate on April 16, 2018. Appellant’s brief is presently 

due February 28, 2018. To expedite the possible disposition of this appeal and in the 

interest of conservation of judicial resources, we deny the parties’ motion as moot and 

abate the appeal. All appellate deadlines are, therefore, suspended. The case will be

removed from our active docket and treated as a closed case until April 19, 2018, or until 
2

further order of this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 43.6; Mesa Water, L.P. v. Tex. Water 

Dev. Bd., No. 07-11-00153-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 5311, at *2-3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 

July 13, 2011, order) (per curiam) (doing same). The parties are directed to advise the 

court of the status of the mediation by April 19, 2018.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on January 18, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Border Security Technology Consortium (“BSTC”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Next Tier Concepts, Inc., Vienna, VA has withdrawn as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and BSTC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On May 30, 2012, BSTC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 18, 2012 (77 FR 36292).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 6, 2021. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 9, 2021 (86 FR 62205).                

Suzanne Morris,

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2022-05089 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### Maria da Conceicao SANTOS-NETA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1607

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 17, 2017

Decided: November 2, 2017

Maria da Conceicao Santos-Neta, Petitioner Pro Se. Anthony Ogden Pottinger, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Maria da Conceicao Santos-Neta, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely and number-barred. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2017). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re Santos-Neta*(B.I.A. Apr. 7, 2017). We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s refusal to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen and therefore dismiss this portion of the petition for review. *See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552*F.3d 397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009).

Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for .review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART*
Exhibit
      32





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





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-


Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, I, David M. Goldenberg, Interim Chief Financial Officer of


Advanced
      ID Corporation (the “Company"), hereby certify, that to the


best
      of
      my knowledge, the Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
      quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.






Date: May 19, 2006/s/ David
              M.
              GoldenbergDavid
                M. Goldenberg, Interim Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996             SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996             SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          72,829                 105,804
<SECURITIES>                                    12,110                  12,379
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,036                  25,952
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,341                   3,747
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               136,416                 150,133
<PP&E>                                          33,579                  30,344
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 488,547                 290,221
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          234,478                  58,467
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           317                     317
<OTHER-SE>                                     227,515                 230,747
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   488,547                 290,221
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,383                  24,473
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                47,441                  23,216
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,058)                  1,257
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (2,774)                    568
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,284)                    689
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,284)                    689
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.10)                   0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.10)                   0.03
        

</TABLE>