alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_science(7)
              - connect_locations(1)
              - (-)connect_social_media(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(40)

## By Location

## By Year

              - (-)2023(1)
              - 2022(6)
              - 2021(1)

social mediaUSGS — Eyes on Earth
Exhibit 31.2

     CERTIFICATIONS OF CFO PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Steve Careaga, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Nannaco, Inc.
("Registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 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
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

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.

May 11, 2005

/s/ Steve Careaga
-----------------
Steve Careaga
Principal Financial Officer
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - products_publications(19)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)
              - other_basic-37(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(12)
              - arizona(8)
              - california(17)
              - colorado(5)
              - connecticut(3)
              - delaware(3)
              - district of columbia(2)
              - florida(8)
              - georgia(4)
              - hawaii(13)
              - idaho(3)
              - kansas(4)
              - kentucky(1)
              - louisiana(3)
              - maine(2)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(6)
              - minnesota(1)
              - mississippi(3)
              - montana(4)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(3)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(4)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(4)
              - north carolina(4)
              - north dakota(1)
              - ohio(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - rhode island(2)
              - south carolina(3)
              - south dakota(47)
              - texas(5)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(2)
              - virginia(6)
              - washington(2)
              - west virginia(1)
              - (-)wisconsin(1)
              - wyoming(11)

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        April 26, 2021        EarthShots — Satellite Images of Environmental Change
Having considered the parties' arguments and the record on 

appeal, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the EMRB's 

decision. See Bisch v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 

36, 302 P.3d 1108, 1112 (2013) (providing that this court, like the district 

court, gives considerable deference to the EMRB's rulings and will affirm 

the EMRB's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence, which is 

evidence that "a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion"). While appellant argues that Clark County violated the 

collective bargaining agreement's definition of "continuous service" in 

calculating his seniority, he does not address the fact that Clark County 

and SEIU bargained for and agreed to layoff guidelines supplementing the 

collective bargaining agreement, which provided that an employee who 

voluntarily transfers to another department will have his or her seniority 

calculated from the date he or she began working for the new department. 

Substantial evidence supports the EMRB's conclusion that Clark County 

did not violate the collective bargaining agreement and supplemental 

layoff guidelines when it calculated appellant's seniority from the date he 

started with the Department of Development Services. 

Further, substantial evidence supports the EMRB's decision 

that the County rebutted appellant's prima facie case for age 

discrimination because he was laid off as a result of an application of 

reverse seniority. See Apeceche v. White Pine Cnty., 96 Nev. 723, 726-27, 

615 P.2d 975, 977-78 (1980) (providing that once a prima facie case for 

discrimination is established, the employer has the burden to demonstrate 

some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action). Lastly, 

substantial evidence supports the EMRB's conclusion that SEIU fairly 

represented appellant even though it did not file a grievance on his behalf 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 2 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 4(eD 
CLut 

Cherry 

, J. 

because SEIU made a good faith determination that the grievance lacked 

merit. See Weiner v. Beatty, 121 Nev. 243, 249, 116 P.3d 829, 833 (2005) 

(requiring a union representing a union member to act in good faith). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.' 

J. 

Parraguirre 

Douglas 

t-t-9 incA J. 

cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge 

Salvatore C. Gugino, Settlement Judge 

Alverson Taylor Mortensen & Sanders 

Urban Law Firm 

Attorney General/Las Vegas 

Clark County District Attorney/Civil Division 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

"While it appears that appellant takes issue with the County's 

designation of employees without engineering licenses as engineers, 

whether the County violated NRS 625.520 was not properly before the 

EMRB, and thus, this issue is not properly before this court. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 3 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A
***EXHIBIT 31***

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Gilbert Burciaga, certify that:  

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB (“Report”) of Providence Resources, Inc.;  

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 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 period presented in this 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 small business issuer and have:  

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer is made known to me 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 my 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. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):   

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls 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 controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 10, 2007  

 

/s/ Gilbert Burciaga

Gilbert Burciaga 

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32

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

     In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Prime Holdings and Investments,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
the  undersigned,  as Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial Office of the
Company,  hereby  certifies,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     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.

/s/ John Visendi
---------------------------------
John Visendi
President, Chief Executive Officer
And Chief Financial Officer
May 24, 2004

A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 ("Section  906"), or other document  authenticating,
acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the signature  that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,
has been provided to Prime Holdings and  Investments,  Inc. and will be retained
by Prime  Holdings and  Investments,  Inc. and furnished to the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5883 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5883

  To lower the Federal tax on the earnings of American companies with 
                          foreign operations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 11, 2014

 Mr. Stockman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To lower the Federal tax on the earnings of American companies with 
                          foreign operations.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Tax for Repatriation Act''.

SEC. 2. LOWERING OF FEDERAL TAX ON EARNINGS OF OVERSEAS AMERICAN 
              COMPANIES.

    (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that American companies with 
foreign operations are accumulating earnings totaling as much as one 
trillion dollars, not repatriated to the United States due to corporate 
income taxes as high as 35 percent. As a result of this penalty, U.S. 
companies invest their earnings in foreign countries with little to no 
consequence. However, if invested internally, these funds could spur 
the development of U.S. jobs, capital assets, research, and more. 
Whereas most developed countries, such as Germany, the United Kingdom, 
and France all have a tax on corporate profits earned internationally 
ranging from 0 percent to 2 percent, the United States has not followed 
this lead. Therefore, the Congress must adopt legislation lowering the 
Federal tax on earnings of American companies with foreign operations 
to 5 percent. Implementation of this change has the ability to raise 
Federal tax revenue by $50 billion, helping to fund the trillion dollar 
stimulus.
    (b) American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 Elimination.--The American 
Jobs Creation Act of 2004 allows American companies with foreign 
operations a one-time tax break on earnings, decreasing the Federal tax 
from 35 percent to 5.25 percent. The ``Fair Tax for Repatriation Act'' 
would lower this tax from 5.25 percent to 5 percent permanently.

SEC. 3. ADMINISTRATION OF THE FAIR TAX FOR REPATRIATION ACT.

    The United States Department of the Treasury will be responsible 
for administrating and enforcing the Federal tax on earnings of 
American companies with foreign operations. The Federal tax for U.S. 
corporations earning profits abroad will be a flat 5 percent.

SEC. 4. ENACTMENT DATE.

    This bill shall go into effect 90 days after passage.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-87358) pertaining to the Amended and Restated Stock Option Plan of MSN Holdings, Inc. and the MSN Holdings, Inc. 2001 Stock Incentive Plan of Medical Staffing NetworkHoldings, Inc. of our reports dated March 2, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Medical Staffing Network Holdings, Inc., Medical Staffing Network Holdings, Inc. management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Medical Staffing Network Holdings, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for theyear ended December 31, 2006. 

 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 

March 2, 2007
STATE of Louisiana v. Jonas KELLY

NO. 2018-KO-0153

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 5, 2018

Denied.
Ben HUGHES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3851

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 09, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice. Petitioner is required to make an express and distinct demand for performance before mandamus will be considered. See Al-Hakim v. State. 783 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

LaROSE, C.J., and MORRIS and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Lachlan ROTSCHREK, a/k/a Ciaran Templar-Obrien, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. 13TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3775

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 10, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as duplicative of the petition filed in case 2D18-3816. Petitioner's motion to expedite is denied as moot.

LaROSE, C.J., and MORRIS and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
|                                        |                                      |                                    |
|---------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                        | **ETELCHARGE.COM,                  INC.** |
|                                   |                                 |                               |
| Date: August                  10, 2007 | By:                             | /s/                  Robert M. Howe III |
|                                        |                                           |
|                                        | Chief                  Executive Officer  |

|                                        |                                                          |                                     |
|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                                        | **ETELCHARGE.COM,                  INC.**                     |
|                                   |                                                     |                                |
| Date: August                  10, 2007 | By:                                                 | /s/                  Michelle R. Sherman |
|                                        |                                                               |
|                                        | Principal                  Financial                  Officer |
James W. COATES and Kareen Coates, his wife, Appellants, v. BENNETT AUTO SUPPLY, INC., and Honeywell International, Inc, Appellees.

No. 4D17-1533

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[October 11, 2018]

Charles S. Siegel and Charles P. Stern of Waters & Kraus, LLP, Dallas, Texas, and Rebecca S. Vinocur of Rebecca S. Vinocur, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellants.

Jack R. Reiter of GrayRobinson, P.A., Miami, and Anthony N. Upshaw and Caroline M. Iovino of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Miami, for appellee Honeywell International, Inc.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., Levine and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 95-4022

___________

Fru-Con Construction *

Corporation, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Thomas J. Wiens; John *

Silvia, Jr., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellants. *

___________

 Submitted: February 20, 1997

 Filed: March 10, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Fru-Con Construction Corporation filed a complaint alleging

that Thomas Wiens and John Silvia as guarantors had defaulted on a

promissory note. To settle that claim, Wiens and Silvia executed

consent judgments, and Fru-Con agreed it would not file the

judgments if other settlement payments were timely made. After

defaults in those payments, the district court entered final

judgments in accordance with the consent judgments. Wiens and

Silvia now appeal a subsequent order denying their Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b) motion to set aside the judgments. We affirm.

The district court has discretion to grant extraordinary

relief under Rule 60(b) upon a showing of "exceptional
-2-

circumstances." See Mitchell v. Shalala, 48 F.3d 1039, 1041 (8th

Cir. 1995). We conclude that the court did not abuse its
-3-

discretion in denying defendants' motion without an evidentiary

hearing, because Wiens and Silvia presented no evidence that

compliance with the earlier settlement agreements made entry of the

consent judgments improper, other than their conclusory assertions

that Fru-Con was paid in full. See Printed Media Servs., Inc. v.

Solna Web, Inc., 11 F.3d 838, 842 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard of

review). We reject their challenge to the underlying final

judgments because a Rule 60(b) motion may not substitute for direct

appeal. See Spinar v. South Dakota Bd. of Regents, 796 F.2d 1060,

1062-63 (8th Cir. 1986).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - connect_staff_profiles(10)

## By Location

              - alaska(2)
              - arizona(2)
              - arkansas(1)
              - (-)california(10)
              - colorado(4)
              - delaware(2)
              - district of columbia(2)
              - florida(1)
              - hawaii(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - maryland(2)
              - massachusetts(4)
              - michigan(1)
              - montana(1)
              - nevada(1)
              - new mexico(1)
              - south dakota(15)
              - texas(1)
              - virginia(4)
              - washington(4)

## By Year

              - (-)2024(10)
              - 2023(2)
              - 2021(1)

staff profileAmy East

staff profileRoger Borcherdt

staff profileElizabeth S Cochran

staff profileJonathan Glen

staff profileRichard Blakely

staff profileDavid  Ponce

staff profileDavid Damby, Ph.D

staff profileEric Geist

staff profileAndrew J Barbour, Ph.D.

staff profileRenee Takesue
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Merci, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the Report), I, Jose Acevedo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations. Date: August 19, 2008 /s/ Jose Acevedo Chief Financial Officer
##### 



Exhibit 15
 Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code
 Company Report
 1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods
presented in the Report.
  /s/ Phil E. MulacekPhil E. MulacekChief Executive Officer