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

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Janet Crance, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of BGR Corporation;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report; and

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial position, results of operations, and cash
     flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly
     report.

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures for the issuer and have:

     (i)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the issuer is made known to me,
          particularly during the period in which the periodic reports are being
          prepared;
     (ii) Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer's disclosure controls and
          procedures as of June 30, 2004; and
     (iii)Presented in the report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
          disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the
          Evaluation Date;

     5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the issuer's
     auditors and the audit committee of the board of directors (or persons
     fulfilling the equivalent function):

     (i)  All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the issuer's ability to record,
          process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for
          the issuer's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls
          (none were so noted); and
     (ii) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the issuer's internal
          controls (none were so noted); and

6.   I have indicated in the report whether or not 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: October 18, 2004

/s/ Janet Crance
-------------------------
Janet Crance
Chief Financial Officer
1 Larry G. Massanari has been appointed to serve as Acting Commissioner of

Social Security, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).

2 The Honorable John T. Maughmer, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-3813

___________ Garold Stults, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Larry G. Massanari, Acting * Western District of Missouri. Commissioner of Social Security, 1 * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 9, 2001 Filed: July 16, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. GaroldStults appeals the district court’s 2 order affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We-2-

review that decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Ingram v. Chater , 107 F.3d 598, 600 (8th Cir. 1997). Having carefully reviewed the record, including the evidence Stults submitted to the Appeals Council, see Cunningham v. Apfel , 222 F.3d 496, 500 (8th Cir. 2000), we find no basis for disturbing the ALJ’s credibility determination, see Gray v. Apfel , 192 F.3d 799, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1999) (ALJ properly discredited claimant’s subjective complaints of pain based on discrepancy between complaints and medical evidence, lack of pain medications, and claimant’s activities) , or his conclusion that Stults had the residual functionalcapacity to perform his past relevant work as a grill operator, see Sells v. Shalala , 48 F.3d 1044, 1046 (8th Cir. 1995) (when determining whether claimant can perform such work, ALJ must specify demands of such work and compare them with what claimant was capable of doing). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Yeramis SANCHO, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Alexander SANCHO, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0441

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

APRIL 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
## Breadcrumb

-  science 

#           Regions      

-  Science 
-  Science Explorer 
-  Mission Areas 
-  Programs 
-  Regions 
-  Science Centers 
-  Observatories 
-  Laboratories 
-  Frequently Asked Questions 
-  Educational Resources 
-  Special Topics 

The USGS researches, monitors, models and forecasts the effects of such change on the Nation's resources. The resulting information and products help policymakers, natural resource managers, and the public make informed decisions about the management of resources on which they depend.

Regional Boundaries Map

                      -  - Northeast Region
We conduct impartial, multi- and interdisciplinary research and monitoring on a large range of natural-resource issues that impact the quality of life of citizens and wildlife throughout Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Washington D.C.
 
- Southeast Region
We conduct impartial, multi- and interdisciplinary research and monitoring to address a broad range of natural-resource issues that affect the quality of life of citizens and landscapes in the Southeastern United States and the Caribbean region.
 
- Midcontinent Region
The Midcontinent Region covers activities in the geographic area of Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
 
- Rocky Mountain Region
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Region 7: Upper Colorado Basin includes the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. USGS Science Centers conduct interdisciplinary research and monitoring related to natural resources, ecology, climate, and natural hazards. Data, analyses, and tools developed by USGS staff help stakeholders to make sustainable management decisions.
 
- Southwest Region
The Southwest Region covers Arizona, California, Nevada, and a portion of southern Oregon. Our scientists do a broad array of research and technical assistance throughout the U.S. and across the globe.
 
- Alaska Region
USGS in Alaska conducts science for decision-making in five major areas: natural hazards; energy & minerals; water quality, streamflow & ice; wildlife, fish & habitat; and geospatial mapping. The Alaska Regional Office provides management and strategic coordination among the Alaska Science Center, the Volcano Science Center, & other partners operating in AK.
 
- Northwest-Pacific Islands Region
Welcome to the USGS Northwest-Pacific Islands Region website. Our seven science centers conduct a wide array of impartial, multi- and interdisciplinary research and monitoring on natural-resource issues in the states of Hawaiʻi, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Western Montana and the United States Pacific Territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Marianas.
STATE EX. REL. Nivaldo M. BUENO v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-0774

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

August 3, 2018

Denied.
SUNTRUST BANKS, INC., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Johnathan PROENZA, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0035

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

MARCH 09, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32

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

     The undersigned, Stephen M. Siedow, the Chief Executive Officer, President
and Chief Financial Officer of MNS Eagle Equity Group, Inc. (the "Company"),
DOES HEREBY CERTIFY, that:

     1.   The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
          September 30, 2003 (the "Report"), fully complies with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
          and

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

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement
this 15th day of October, 2003.


                                            By:  /s/  Stephen M. Siedow
                                               --------------------------------
                                                      Stephen M. Siedow,
                                                      Chief Executive Officer,
                                                      President and
                                                      Chief Financial Officer


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to MNS Eagle Equity Group, Inc. and will be retained by MNS Eagle
Equity Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or it
staff upon request.
Howden Cooling Fans

RETROFIT OF A LARGE COOLING TOWER IN COMBINATION WITH

A SIGNIFICANT NOISE REDUCTION

C

a

s

e

S

t

u

d

y

Cooling Tower at OMV, Vienna

OMV has a large refinery outside the

Austrian capital of Vienna. Typically large

cooling towers are a key part of the installations at such a plant. After 18 years of

operation, cooling tower number 3 required

replacement of the rotating equipment,

i.e. the fans and drive trains. In addition,

OMV has a strict environmental impact

policy that revamps must lead to substantial

noise reduction.

These two items, the need to retrofit and the overall

policy for noise reduction at this site have been the

starting point for the revamping project on cooling

tower number 3, which has 24 cells with 22 ft. diameter fans.

At first, a comparative performance and sound test was done 

between a super quiet fan and a 

classic straight bladed fan.

Measurements by an independent

German acoustic consultant were

made before and after the revamp.

The results from this test showed 

the difference in noise level of 

15 dB(A) between the super quiet 

fan and the classic straight bladed 

fan, and proved the potential to reduce noise in the existing cooling

towers when using the super quiet 

fan. For OMV it justified the 

required investment and the decision to proceed.

CS 00/01

Nov 2003

Figure 1

The super quiet SX-fans that were used for this

revamp are shown in figure 1.
Cooling Tower

Howden Cooling Fans

table 1:

verification

test results

Noise Data (LwA) in dB(A)

Before After

Air inlet, down at the tower LwA 110 110

Air outlet, fan stack LwA 115 100

Drive train LwA 110 94

Total of cooling tower LwA 117.7 110.9

At the nearest housing areas SPL 49.1 39.2

C

a

s

e

S

t

u

d

y

The SX-fans are quiet for the following two main

reasons:

The higher blade coverage in the cross sectional

area (solidity) of the SX-fan enables the air flow to

be archieved at a lower speed than a conventional

fan type.

The special blade shape with swept forward leading and trailing edges generates less noise than

a conventional fan type.

As a result SX-fans archieve a given air flow generating 10 to 15 dB(A) less nouse, when compared

to classic straight blade fans or, the other way

round, the SX-fan can provide substantially more

air flow for a given noise level.

When using SX-fans in low noise applications

special attention has to be paid to the drive train,

to ensure that the gain on aerodynamic noise

reduction is not wasted by noise generated by the

E-motor and/or gearbox.

It is obvious that when standing beside a counter

flow cooling tower the splashing water is the

dominant noise source. However, measurements

by an acoustic consultant proved that for the environmental noise at the nearby housing area, the

fan impeller and drive train were the dominant

noise source and that they would benefit from

this noise reduction. A summary of the archieved

noise reduction is given in table 1.

Howden Cooling Fans

Lansinkesweg 4

P.O. Box 975

7550 AZ Hengelo, The Netherlands

Tel: +31 74 255 6000

Fax: +31 74 255 6060

Web: www.howdencoolingfans.com
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

HDE, INC.,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v. Case No. 5D15-2805

BEE-LINE SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,

Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

________________________________/

Opinion filed October 10, 2016

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Seminole County,

Michael J. Rudisill, Judge.

Atheseus R. Lockhart and Nicole C. 

Jackson, of Meier, Bonner, Muszynski, 

O'Dell & Harvey, P.A., Longwood, for 

Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Jim McCrae and J. Keith Ramsey, of 

Holland & Knight LLP, Orlando, for 

Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Bee-Line Supply 

Company, Inc.

No Appearance for other Appellees/CrossAppellants.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order awarding attorney’s fees to Bee-Line Supply 

Company, Inc. However, as Bee-Line concedes, the prejudgment interest awarded on 
2

the amount of the attorney’s fees should have been assessed from the date of the order 

confirming the arbitration award, June 18, 2013, which determined Bee-Line’s entitlement 

to fees, not March 9, 2011, the date of the arbitration award; and the amount of 

prejudgment interest should have been calculated on the amount of the award and 

included in the judgment to bear post-judgment interest on the full amount. See Quality 

Engineered Installation, Inc. v. Higley South, Inc., 670 So. 2d 929, 930-31 (Fla. 1996); 

Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Wood, 676 So. 2d 464, 466 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). 

Accordingly, we remand only for the proper calculation of the prejudgment interest.

1

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions. 

ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., and CRAGGS, A. M., Associate Judge, concur.

 

1 Appellee filed a notice of cross-appeal on August 25, 2015; however, the crossappeal is deemed abandoned since Bee-Line did not file a cross-appeal initial brief.
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains editorial corrections of previously

published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule,

and Notice documents. These corrections are

prepared by the Office of the Federal

Register. Agency prepared corrections are

issued as signed documents and appear in

the appropriate document categories

elsewhere in the issue.

Corrections Federal Register

11954

Vol. 63, No. 47

Wednesday, March 11, 1998

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

14 CFR Part 382

[Docket OST-96-1880]

RIN 2105-AC28

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of

Disability in Air Travel

Correction

In rule document 98–5525 beginning

on page 10528 in the issue of

Wednesday, March 4, 1998, make the

following correction:

§ 382.38 [Corrected]

On page 10536, in the second column,

in § 382.38(k), ‘‘August 31, 1998’’

should read ‘‘September 30, 1998’’.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG–209682–94]

RIN 1545–AS39

Adjustments Following Sales of

Partnership Interests

Correction

In proposed rule document 98–1949,

beginning on page 4408, in the issue of

Thursday, January 29, 1998, make the

following correction:

§ 1.743–1 [Corrected]

On page 4419, in the table, in

‘‘Assets’’, in the fourth column under

‘‘Basis adjustment’’, the total ‘‘4,000.00’’

should read ‘‘3,000.00’’.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8058

BILLY AUSTIN, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00224-RBS-FBS)

Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 26, 2009

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Austin, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Billy Austin seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 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). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. MillerEl v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Austin 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 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Selected hydrologic data, Uinta Basin area, Utah and Colorado      

      January 1, 1976    

The Uinta Basin area in northeastern Utah and northwestern Colorado covers an area of slightly more than 10,000 mi2 (25,900 km2). More than 95 percent of the basin is in Utah, thus most of the data in this report apply to Utah. Most of the water wells are concentrated in populated areas along the lower parts of the basin; records of only a representative number of these water sources are included in this report.

This report presents consolidated listings of data selected for use in hydrologic studies in the Uinta Basin area through June 1974. The data are principally taken from three studies made during 1971-74 by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights. Also incorporated in this report are data collected since 1935 by the Geological Survey and other organizations. This report is intended to make data conveniently available and to supplement interpretive reports that will be published separately. For some data sites, the volume of data is too great for complete inclusion here. For these sites, data summaries are provided, and for greater detail the reader is referred to the sources listed under Selected references.

## Citation Information

### Contact

####               Salt Lake City Main Office          

2329 West Orton CircleWest Valley City, UT84119-2047United States

doleary@usgs.gov

(801) 908-5014

(801) 908-5001

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - uinta basin
                  - Colorado
                  -  Utah

View All **
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  filing of the  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report")
by Kiwa Bio-Tech Products Group Corporation (the "Registrant"),  the undersigned
hereby certifies that:

1. To the best of my knowledge,  the Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. To the best of my knowledge,  the information  contained in the Report fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of the Registrant.

                                           /S/ WEI LI
DATE: April 13, 2005              BY: ___________________________
                                        WEI LI
                                        CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER




                                        /S/ LIAN JUN LUO
DATE: April 13, 2005              BY: ___________________________
                                        LIAN JUN LUO
                                        CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
FORM 10-QSB
September 30, 2004                                 Transax international Limited


EXHIBIT 10.1
                                                            66-4933 Fisher Drive
                                                             Richmond BC V6X 3Z2
                                                                          Canada

10 November 2004

Mr. Stephen Walters
President & CEO
Transax International Limited
Suite 200, 7545 Irvine Centre Drive
Irvine CA 92618
USA

Dear Stephen,

RESIGNATION AS A DIRECTOR AND OFFICER

I regret to advise that due to ongoing personal interests it is not possible for
me to devote the appropriate time to Transax  International  Limited ("Transax")
as Director and Officer of the Corporation.

Consequently,  I hereby tender my resignation as Director and Officer of Transax
with effect as at 10 November 2004 ("the  Effective  Date").  I understand  that
Transax's indemnification clause as per bylaws read as follows:

      THE  CORPORATION  SHALL  INDEMNIFY  ANY PROPER PERSON  AGAINST  REASONABLY
      INCURRED EXPENSES (INCLUDING ATTORNEYS' FEES), JUDGMENTS, PENALTIES, FINES
      (INCLUDING  ANY EXCISE TAX ASSESSED  WITH  RESPECT TO AN EMPLOYEE  BENEFIT
      PLAN) AND AMOUNTS PAID IN SETTLEMENT REASONABLY INCURRED BY HIM CONNECTION
      WITH SUCH ACTION, SUIT OR PROCEEDING IF IT IS DETERMINED BY THE GROUPS SET
      FORTH IN SECTION 4 OF THIS ARTICLE THAT HE CONDUCTED HIMSELF IN GOOD FAITH
      AND  THAT  HE  REASONABLY  BELIEVED:  (I) IN THE  CASE OF  CONDUCT  IN HIS
      OFFICIAL  CAPACITY  WITH  THE  CORPORATION,  THAT HIS  CONDUCT  WAS IN THE
      CORPORATION'S  BEST  INTERESTS;  (II) IN ALL OTHER CASES (EXCEPT  CRIMINAL
      CASES),  THAT HIS CONDUCT  WAS AT LEAST NOT  OPPOSED TO THE  CORPORATION'S
      BEST INTERESTS;  OR (III) IN THE CASE OF ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDING,  THAT HE
      HAD NO  REASONABLE  CAUSE TO BELIEVE HIS CONDUCT  WAS  UNLAWFUL.  OFFICIAL
      CAPACITY  MEANS,  WHEN USED WITH  RESPECT  TO A  DIRECTOR,  THE  OFFICE OF
      DIRECTOR  AND,  WHEN USED WITH  RESPECT TO ANY OTHER  PROPER  PERSON,  THE
      OFFICE IN A CORPORATION  HELD BY THE OFFICER OR THE EMPLOYMENT,  FIDUCIARY
      OR AGENCY RELATIONSHIP  UNDERTAKEN BY THE EMPLOYEE,  FIDUCIARY OR AGENT ON
      BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION.  OFFICIAL CAPACITY DOES NOT INCLUDE SERVICE FOR
      ANY OTHER  DOMESTIC  OR FOREIGN  CORPORATION  OR OTHER  PERSON OR EMPLOYEE
      BENEFIT PLAN.

I take this  opportunity  to wish the company,  its staff and Board of Directors
much  success  in the roll out phase of its  technology,  and I look  forward to
Transax's continuing success in the transactions processing marketplace.

Yours sincerely,

/GRAEME SMITH/

                                                                         Page 42