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

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Joseph Lambert, certify that:

 

1.                  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/Aof Lyris, Inc.;

 

2.                  Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.                  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.                  The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:

 

a)         Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)        (Not applicable)

 

c)         Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report myconclusions 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

 

d)        Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.                  The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)         All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)        Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 

Dated:  February 29, 2008

 
|   | /s/ Joseph  Lambert                      |
|--------|------------------------------------------|
|   | Joseph Lambert,  Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

----
Rel: March 17, 2023

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter . Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions , Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104

- 3741 ((334) 229

- 06 50 ), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter

. 

# SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

OCTOBER TERM, 2022

- 2023

______________________ ___ SC

- 2022

- 0767

_________________________ City of Dothan

v. Carroll Ben Powell, Jr. Appeal from Dale Circuit Court ( CV

- 19

- 900102 )

MENDHEIM, Justice.
AFFIRMED. NO OPINION. See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2) (E) , Ala. R. App. P.SC

- 2022

- 0767

2 Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ., concur. Parker, C.J., concur s in part and dissent s in part , with opinion, which Cook, J., joins

.SC

- 2022

- 0767

3 PARKER, Chief Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in affirming the summary judgment in favor of Carroll Ben Powell, Jr., with regard to the City of Dothan's public

- nuisance claim. I dissent from affirming the judgment in favor of Powell on the City of Dothan's interference

- with

- easement claim. I would reverse the judgment as to that claim. Cook, J., concurs.
# L_2009070DE.01001902.xml

| 14.3.2009 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 70/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2009

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 70/19

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 194/2008 des Rates vom 25. Februar 2008 zur Verlängerung und Ausweitung der restriktiven Maßnahmen gegen Birma/Myanmar und zur Aufhebung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 817/2006

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 66 vom 10. März 2008
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 66 vom 10. März 2008

Seite 3, Kapitel 1 „Begriffsbestimmungen“, Artikel 1 Buchstabe a:

anstatt:

„... Dazu gehört im Sinne der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2913/92 des Rates vom 12. Oktober 1992 zur Festlegung des Zollkodex der Gemeinschaften (1) die Verbringung in eine Freizone oder ein Freilager, die Überführung in ein Nichterhebungsverfahren und die Überführung in den zollrechtlich freien Verkehr, nicht aber die Durchfuhr und die vorübergehende Lagerung;“

1

muss es heißen:

„... Dazu gehört im Sinne der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2913/92 des Rates vom 12. Oktober 1992 zur Festlegung des Zollkodex der Gemeinschaften (1) die Verbringung in eine Freizone oder ein Freilager, die Überführung in ein Nichterhebungsverfahren und die Überführung in den zollrechtlich freien Verkehr, nicht aber die Durchfuhr und die vorübergehende Verwahrung;“.

1

---
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Wind Erosion and Water Conservation Research: Lubbock, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




The Wind Erosion and Water Conservation research unit focuses on applied and fundamental research regarding the effects of wind-induced soil erosion, interactions between plants and soil environments and much more.


PSWC Meteorological Tower Data Big Spring Meteorological Tower Data Stakeholder Meetings 2019 ARS Soil Biology Workshop Photos of the Llano Estacado Photos of the Rolling Plains of Texas Threshold Tower Data


People Abdul-Rahman, Hannah Acosta-Martinez, Veronica Brzozowske, Elizabeth Comstock, Holly Cotton, Jon Escamilla, Eduardo Gitz, Dennis Hollaway, Reannah Lascano, Robert Mauget, Steven Roper, Wayne Stout, John Van Pelt, Robert
                                            *- Scott* White, Hunter Williams, Jeffery


Plains Area   robert.lascano@ars.usda.gov


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
**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 Quarterly Report of NationalMercantile Bancorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Scott A. Montgomery, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

                (1)  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/  SCOTT A. MONTGOMERY |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Scott  A. Montgomery     |   |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |   |

 

 

Date:  May 13,2005

 

----
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CREATIVE COMPUTER APPLICATIONS, INC.**

 

**Statement Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**By**

**Principal Executive OfficerRegarding Facts and Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act Filings**

 

I, Steven M.Besbeck, Chief Executive Officer of Creative Computer Applications, Inc. (the“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)                                  the QuarterlyReport on From 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period ended May 31,2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d) ); and

 

(2)                                  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of the operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  July 14, 2003 | /s/  Steven M. Besbeck                                       |   |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                  | Steven  M. Besbeck                                                |
|                  | President,  Chief Executive Officer,  and Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
#### CITY OF NEW YORK v. CENTRAL PARK, N. & E. R. RY. CO., et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 22, 1912.)

Action by the City of New York against the Central Park, North & East River Railway Company, impleaded with Adrian H. Joline and another, receivers, etc. No opinion. T. Farley, for plaintiff respondent. C. Mellen, for defendant Central Park, N. & E. R. R. Co. Judgment affirmed, with costs, on plaintiff’s appeal, to the defendant receivers, respondents, and on the appeal of the defendant Central Park, North & East River Railroad Company, with costs to plaintiff. Order filed.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CAUSE NO.: 2:16-CR-50-TLS-JEM

ANTHONY DARNELL MCDONALD

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge Upon a Plea of Guilty [ECF No. 54], filed on October 22, 2020. The Defendant has 

waived objection to the Findings and Recommendation.

The Court finds that the change of plea conducted by video teleconference complies with 

Section 15002(b)(2)(A) of the CARES Act. First, General Orders 2020-08, 2020-20, and 2020-

29 authorized video conferencing for felony pleas under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, 

finding that such hearings cannot be conducted in person without seriously jeopardizing public 

health and safety as a result of the current COVID-19 pandemic. 

Second, the Court finds that the Defendant’s felony plea in this case cannot be delayed 

without serious harm to the interests of justice due to the Defendant’s desire to admit his guilt, 

plead guilty, and proceed to sentencing in a timely manner and the government and public 

interest in timely processing criminal matters. 

Finally, the Defendant consented to video teleconferencing after consultation with 

counsel. See CARES ACT § 15002(b)(4). Prior to the October 22, 2020 Change of Plea Hearing, 

the Defendant submitted a Consent to Appear by Video Teleconference [ECF No. 51], in which 

he provided his consent for court proceedings to be conducted by video teleconference and 

indicated that his consent was provided freely and voluntarily and that no threats or promises 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cr-00050-TLS-JEM document 55 filed 11/20/20 page 1 of 2
2

were made to compel him to sign the form. Additionally, the Defendant orally consented to the 

video hearing and waived his right to appear in person during the Change of Plea Hearing. 

Change of Plea Hr’g, ECF No. 53.

The Court being duly advised, ADOPTS the Findings and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge Upon a Plea of Guilty [ECF No. 54] in its entirety and ACCEPTS the 

recommended disposition. Subject to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c), if applicable and necessary, the plea of guilty to the 

offense charged in Count 5 of the Indictment is hereby ACCEPTED, and the Defendant is 

adjudged GUILTY of the offense. 

The Sentencing Scheduling Order scheduling sentencing-related deadlines and hearings 

will be issued by separate order.

SO ORDERED on November 20, 2020.

s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cr-00050-TLS-JEM document 55 filed 11/20/20 page 2 of 2
Leo Jerome STEVENSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7060.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
[Nos. 13899-2-III; 14243-4-III.

Division Three.

October 14, 1997.]

#### *In the Matter of the Detention of*Paul Begay. *In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of*Paul Begay, *Petitioner.*

Appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court for Franklin County, No. 93-2-50075-3, Duane E. Taber, J., entered February 8, 1994, together with a petition for relief from personal restraint. Judgment *affirmed*and petition *denied*by unpublished opinion per Brown, J., concurred in by Sweeney, C.J., and Kurtz, J.
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 Annual Report of J.L. Halsey Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David R. Burt, President, Chief Executive Officer and acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/DAVID R. BURTDavid R. Burt
President, Chief Executive Officer and acting Chief Financial Officer
September 28, 2004 | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

---



QuickLinks
# L_2008101EN.01000501.xml

| 11.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 101/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 101/5

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 327/2008

of 10 April 2008

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 900/2007

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 of 27 July 2007 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2007/08 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 of 27 July 2007 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2007/08 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 10 April 2008, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 10 April 2008, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 10 April 2008, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 shall be 31,916 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 April 2008.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 April 2008.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1260/2007 (OJ L 283, 27.10.2007, p. 1). Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 will be replaced by Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1) as from 1 October 2008.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 196, 28.7.2007, p. 26. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 148/2008 by Commission Regulation (OJ L 46, 21.2.2008, p. 9).

2

---
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



I, Huajun Yu, Chief Financial Officer of Cougar Holdings Inc. (the
Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| |  |  | the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/ HUAJUN YUHuajun YuChief Financial OfficerOctober 12, 2005
#### FLANSBURG, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CONTRACTING CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 4, 1912.)

Action by Charles Flansburg against the New York Contracting Company. J. C. Toole, for appellant. T. J. O’Neill, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on 136 App. Div. 551, 121 N. Y. Supp. 156. Order filed.

INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, J., dissent, on former dissenting opinion.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Victor Alberti, Respondent.

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated May 7, 1984, which granted defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence seized pursuant to a warrant.

Order reversed, on the law and the facts, motion to suppress physical evidence denied, and matter remitted to Criminal Term for further proceedings.

Criminal Term found that Officer Hanna was on a public sidewalk when he knelt down, peered through an aperture beneath defendant’s garage door, and observed a license plate registered to a stolen vehicle inside *(see, People v Alberti,*124 Misc 2d 532). At the time, the officers were engaged in an ongoing surveillance of the commercial premises, which was suspected of housing a “chop shop”. The officer was located upon a public right-of-way at the time of his observation, a fact conceded by defendant’s counsel at the oral argument of this appeal. Accordingly, he was entitled to observe what was exposed to public view *(see, e.g., People v Sciacca,*64 AD2d 677; *cf. People v Farenga,*42 NY2d 1092; *see generally, Coolidge v New Hampshire,*403 US 443; *James v United States,*418 F2d 1150, 1151, n 1). Furthermore, the record indicates that Officer Hanna, who died prior to the hearing, looked through a three-inch aperture at the bottom of the door, an aperture defendant never blocked out from public view. Consequently, defendant *861had a minimal expectation of privacy in the commercial premises. Accordingly, it was error for Criminal Term to suppress the evidence later seized pursuant to a warrant.

We further disagree with Criminal Term’s conclusion that an inadequate predicate for the issuance of the warrant was presented. Based upon our aforementioned findings, we conclude that a sufficient showing of probable cause was made for the issuance of a warrant to enter and seize the stolen vehicle observed by Officer Hanna (see, *e.g., People v Arnau,*58 NY2d 27; *James v United States, supra,*at pp 1151-1152). The remaining items seized would have been inevitably discovered because they were in open view within the garage (see, *e.g., People v Fitzpatrick,*32 NY2d 499, *cert denied*414 US 1033,1050; *People v Arminio,*104 AD2d 995; *Nix v Williams,*467 US_, 104 S Ct 2501). Thus any possible illegality connected with the officers’ warrantless entry into the garage after Officer Hanna’s observation but before the issuance of the warrant did not taint the admissibility of the evidence seized (see, *e.g., People v Arnau, supra,*at p 32). Defendant failed to meet his ultimate burden of showing that the evidence should not be admitted at trial *(People v Berrios,*28 NY2d 361; *People v Arnau, supra).*

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the order is reversed, defendant’s motion to suppress denied, and the matter is remitted to Criminal Term for further proceedings. Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur. [124 Mise 2d 532.]