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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Martin Wotton, President of visionGATEWAY, Inc. (the "Registrant"),
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant;

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;

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 condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly 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 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, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly 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 quarterly report any change in the Registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter 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 auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of
directors:

(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 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 controls over
financial reporting.

Dated:  October 20, 2006

/s/ Martin G. Wotton
------------------------------------------
Martin G. Wotton
President
(Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32

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 Annual Report of Aberdene Mines Limited (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the
"report"), I, Hugh Grenfal, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and 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 requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

	Dated this 12th day of November, 2003.


/s/

_______________________________________
Hugh Grenfal, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

• cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge 

Armando Benavides Cortinas, Jr. 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 828 

To rescind $45 billion of unobligated discretionary appropriations, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2013 

Mr. PRICE of Georgia (for himself, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. BUCSHON, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. POMPEO, Mr. FLORES, 

Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. JONES, and Mr. SCALISE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To rescind $45 billion of unobligated discretionary 

appropriations, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Decrease Spending 

5 Now Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 828 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESCISSION OF UNOBLIGATED DISCRETIONARY AP2 PROPRIATIONS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Of the unobligated balances of 

4 discretionary appropriations on the date of enactment of 

5 this Act, $45,000,000,000 is rescinded. 

6 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.— 

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Office of 

8 Management and Budget shall determine which ap9 propriation accounts the rescission under subsection 

10 (a) shall apply to and the amount that each such ac11 count shall be reduced by pursuant to such rescis12 sion. 

13 (2) REPORT.—Not later than 60 days after the 

14 date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of 

15 the Office of Management and Budget shall submit 

16 a report to the Secretary of the Treasury and Con17 gress listing the accounts reduced by the rescission 

18 in subsection (a) and the amounts rescinded from 

19 each such account. 

20 (c) EXCEPTIONS.—The rescission under subsection 

21 (a) shall not apply to the Department of Defense, the De22 partment of Veterans Affairs, or the Social Security Ad23 ministration. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Filed 7/30/15 Rhodes v. Elman CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

BRITTANY P. RHODES,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DONALD ELMAN,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 G050057

 (Super. Ct. No. 12V001353)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Renee E.

Wilson, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

Donald Elman, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *
2

Defendant Donald Elman appeals from an order granting a domestic 

violence restraining order against him in favor of plaintiff Brittany Rhodes. Defendant 

contends the court erred by failing to admit into evidence a letter written by plaintiff. 

However, defendant has not cited any portion of the record where the court refused to 

accept this evidence (indeed, he has not cited the record at all). To the contrary, based on 

our review of the record, it appears the court admitted the letter in question. Since the 

record does not reveal any error, we affirm.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. There being no appearance by plaintiff, no costs are 

awarded. 

IKOLA, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

ARONSON, J.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50113

Summary Calendar

 

GREGORY DOUGLAS JOHNSON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-95-CV-137

- - - - - - - - - -

September 13, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gregory Douglas Johnson (#652074) appeals from the district

court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, 28

U.S.C. § 2254. He argues that the State withheld favorable,

material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83

(1963), the state trial court erred in denying his motion for new

trial on that basis, and that the evidence was insufficient.
No. 96-50113

- 2 -

We have reviewed the arguments and the record and perceive

no reversible error. We affirm the district court's dismissal of

Johnson’s petition.

AFFIRMED.
Karen J. HAAS, Petitioner, v. Suleiman Habib YOUSEF, Respondent.

No. 3D18-1779

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed September 26, 2018

Karen J. Haas, in proper person.

Nayib Hassan, for respondent.

Before SUAREZ, FERNANDEZ, and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Karen Haas seeks an Emergency Writ of Prohibition to review the denial of her motion to disqualify the trial judge below. Because Ms. Haas's allegation of ex parte communication forms a prima facie basis for disqualification, we ordered a response. *See* *Brake v. Murphy*, 693 So.2d 663, 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ("We find one point determinative, that being petitioners' argument that when confronted with record evidence of ex parte communication, the trial judge should have granted petitioners' motion for disqualification."). No response was filed. We therefore grant the Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition, direct the disqualification of the trial judge, and remand the case for further proceedings. *See* *Daugherty v. McNeal*, 643 So.2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (granting a petition for writ of prohibition after no response was filed); *State ex rel. Ginsberg v. Wiseheart*, 120 So.2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960) (holding that where no response is filed, the only question is whether the petition for writ of prohibition states a prima facie case). Although we grant the Petition, we assume it will not be necessary to issue a formal writ.
SUCCESSION OF Ethel Lebourgeois DAUTERIVE

NO. 2018-C-1382

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 14, 2018

Denied.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 17, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 892 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-618, K2025-617.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-29796 Filed 12-16-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

      I, John Katzman, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10Q of The Princeton
Review, 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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

      4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-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 officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the 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

<PAGE>

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:    August 12, 2003               /s/ John Katzman
     -------------------------------   -----------------------------------------
                                       John Katzman
                                       Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


                                       2
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 APRIL 5, 2012

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-15846

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00334-CV-ORL-31-GJK

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SOUTHEAST FLOATING DOCKS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(April 5, 2012)

Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
The instant appeal involves a fee dispute arising from Auto-Owners’ suit

against Southeast based on a written indemnity contract. Southeast prevailed, and

filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Fla.Stat. §768.79. The

district court denied the motion, and Southeast appealed to this court. We certified

questions to the Supreme Court of Florida, including the following question: 

1

DOES FLORIDA STATUTE §768.79 APPLY TO CASES THAT

ARE GOVERNED BY THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF ANOTHER

JURISDICTION; AND, IF SO, IS THIS STATUTE APPLICABLE

EVEN TO CONTROVERSIES IN WHICH THE PARTIES HAVE

CONTRACTUALLY AGREED TO BE BOUND BY THE

SUBSTANTIVE LAWS OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION?

In the indemnity contract, the parties agreed that the substantive law of

Michigan would apply. The Supreme Court of Florida answered the certified

2

question in the negative, holding that §768.79 is substantive in nature for conflict

of laws purposes, that no sufficient public policy concerns override the parties’

right to choose the law of a particular forum that governs the substantive portions

Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Southeast Floating Docks, Inc., 632 F.3d 1195 (11th Cir. 1

2011).

The parties stipulated that no comparable statute exists under Michigan law. 2

2
of their contract, and thus that §768.79 simply does not apply. The Florida

3

Supreme Court also disapproved of BDO Seidman, LLP v. British Car Auctions,

Inc., 802 So.2d 366, 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Although the judgment of the district court denying attorney’s fees and costs

was based upon a different ground, we affirm on the ground articulated by the

Supreme Court of Florida. 

AFFIRMED.

Southeast Floating Docks, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., ___ So.3d ___, 2012 WL

3

301029 (Fla. 2012).

3
EXHIBIT 21
----------


                           LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
                           --------------------


      Name of Company                                 Where Organized
      ---------------                                 ---------------

1.    AMF Energy, Inc.                                Delaware
2.    AMF Foods, LLC                                  Delaware
3.    AMF Merchandising Corporation                   Delaware
4.    DC Distribution, LLC                            Illinois
5.    EC Managers, Inc.                               Delaware
6.    Kaanapali Land Management Corporation           Hawaii
7.    Kaanapali Farm Services, Inc.                   Hawaii
8.    Kaanapali Realty LLC                            Delaware
9.    KCF-1, LLC                                      Hawaii
10.   KDCW, Inc.                                      Delaware
11.   KLC Holding Corp.                               Delaware
12.   KLC Land Company, LLC                           Hawaii
13.   NB Lot 2, LLC                                   Delaware
14.   NB Lot 3, LLC                                   Delaware
15.   NB Lot 4, LLC                                   Delaware
16.   Oahu Distribution, Inc.                         Hawaii
17.   Oahu MS Development Corp.                       Hawaii
18.   Oahu Sugar Company, LLC                         Hawaii
19.   Pioneer Mill Company, LLC                       Hawaii
20.   PM Land Company, LLC                            Delaware
21.   Waikele Golf Manager, LLC                       Delaware
22.   Waikele Golf Course, LLC                        Delaware
23.   WG Land, LLC                                    Delaware
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, DC 20549-1004
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) March 27, 2006
 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
  STATE OF DELAWARE
    
    1-143
    
    38-0572515(State or other jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization)
    
    (Commission File
Number)
    
    (I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)300 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan
    
    
    
    48265-3000(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    
    
    (Zip Code)
 (313) 556-5000
  o
 o
 o
 o




---



##### 



TABLE OF CONTENTS
 Item 8.01 Other EventsSignatureExhibit IndexExhibit 99.1 U.S. Marketing & Sales Update PresentationU.S. Marketing & Sales Update




---



##### Table of Contents



ITEM 8.01. OTHER EVENTS
  Exhibit
    
    Description
    
    Method of Filing99.1
    
    U.S. Marketing & Sales Update
    
    Filed herewith
   SIGNATURES
  GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION(Registrant)Date: March 27, 2006
    
    By:
    
    /s/ PETER R. BIBLE(Peter R. Bible, Chief Accounting Officer)




---



##### Table of Contents



Exhibit Index
 Exhibit
    
    Description
    
    Method of Filing99.1
    
    U.S. Marketing & Sales Update
    
    Filed herewith
FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY, LLC v. TEXAS BRINE COMPANY, LLC, et al.

NO. 2018-CC-1383

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 14, 2018

Denied. Moot.
J.B., the Mother, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0370

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

MAY 08, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.

Dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1933

In re: VICTOR B. PERKINS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. (5:23-ct-03092-M-RJ)

Submitted: September 21, 2023 Decided: November 3, 2023

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victor Bernard Perkins, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1933 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/03/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Victor Bernard Perkins petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district 

court has unduly delayed in ruling on his civil rights complaint. He seeks an order from 

this court directing the district court to act. The present record does not reveal undue delay 

in the district court. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. We also deny Perkins’ 

motion for an interlocutory judgment. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1933 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 2