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

         I, Alberto DiBella, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Enviro Voraxial
Technology, 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 officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the 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(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditor 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 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 11, 2004

/s/ Alberto DiBella
-------------------
Alberto DiBella
Principal Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Lau Kwok Hung, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Centiv, Inc;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The Company’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) [language omitted pursuant to SEC Release 34-47986] for theCompany and have:

 

(a)     Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)     [Omitted pursuant to SECRelease 34-47986];

 

(c)     Evaluated the effectivenessof the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(d)     Disclosed in this report anychange in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

 

5.               The Company’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

(a)     All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theCompany’s to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)     Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: May 18, 2004                    |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                  |
|                                  |
| /s/ Lau Kwok Hung                     |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer, and Director |

 

1

----
EXHIBIT 21 (i)



SUBSIDIARIES



Wholly Owned



CCI Resort Development Corporation



EXHIBIT 99.1.

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





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of the registrant certify, to the best of their knowledge, that the registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Form 10-KSB) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-KSB, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



Date: April 14, 2003



Caribbean Clubs International, Inc.



/s/ Fred W. Jackson, Jr.
Fred W. Jackson, Jr.

President,

Chief Executive Officer, and

Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.1**
  **CERTIFICATION**
  
  I, Joseph J. Raymond, certify that:
  1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 of Stratus Services Group, Inc.;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 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 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 quarterly report based on such evaluation; andc.
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 function): 
 a.
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
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: May 16, 2005/s/ Joseph J. RaymondJoseph J. RaymondChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 13-2329

THOMAS STALCUP

 

 Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,

Defendant, Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on October 6, 2014 is

amended as follows:

 On page 6, line 14, change "Ambramsom" to "Abramson"

 On page 17, line 4, change "Serivce" to "Service"
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Secured Data, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for
the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Sanding Tao, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report 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.

Date: July 27, 2005


/s/ Sanding Tao
-----------------------
Sanding Tao
Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7246

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

TERRELL ROGERS, a/k/a Tavon,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District 

Judge. (1:09-cr-00467-WMN-1; 1:13-cv-00116-WMN)

Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: December 19, 2014

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Terrell Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Judson T. Mihok, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terrell Rogers appeals the district court’s orders 

denying a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) 

(2012) and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. For the reasons that 

follow, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

Rogers sought a sentence reduction under Guidelines 

Amendment 750 and the Fair Sentencing Act. We conclude the 

district court properly determined that neither the crack 

cocaine Guidelines amendments nor the Fair Sentencing Act 

impacted Rogers’ Guidelines calculations and resulting sentence, 

as his sentence was driven by the attempted first-degree murder 

cross-reference applied for his 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012) 

conviction and his statutory enhancement under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(e) (2012). See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 

(4th Cir. 2010). We therefore affirm the portion of the 

district court’s order denying a sentence reduction.

The order denying Rogers’ Rule 60(b) motion is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

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) (2012). When the district court denies 
3

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Rogers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of 

the appeal. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART,

DISMISSED IN PART
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40626

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ADAN GRACIA-BERMUDEZ, also known as Adrian Garcia-Berlanga,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:09-CR-154-1

Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Adan GraciaBermudez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Gracia-Bermudez has not filed

a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses

no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 22, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-40626 Document: 00511149128 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2010
EXHIBIT 99.2



COMPUTER ACCESS TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION



CERTIFICATION



In connection with the periodic report of Computer Access Technology Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Carmine J. Napolitano, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for
purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



|                    
|--------------------
|                    
|                    
|Date: March 21, 2003
|                    
|
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10036]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-376-000]

Portland Natural Gas Transmission System; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

April 18, 2001.
    Take notice that on April 12, 2001 Portland Natural Gas 
Transmission System (PNGTS), tendered for filing as part of its FERC 
Gas Tariff First, Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to 
be effective May 1, 2001:

Second Revised Sheet No. 345
Second Revised Sheet No. 380
    PNGTS states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
Order No. 587-M, issued by the Commission on November 30, 2000. The 
revised tariff sheets reflect certain Version 1.4 standards promulgated 
by the Gas Industry Standards Board which were adopted by the 
Commission and incorporated by reference in the Commission's 
Regulations.
    PNGTS states that copies of the filing were mailed to all affected 
customers of PNGTS and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.is/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance. 
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via 
the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10036 Filed 4-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
#### Chris D. Larsen et al., Respondents, v Vivian Heitmann et al., Appellants.

— Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: The proof at trial was insufficient to support a cause of action against the parents of defendant Philip Heitmann for negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrument. Although a motor vehicle may be a dangerous instrument in the hands of a child who, because of immaturity *(Acquaviva v Piazzolla,*100 AD2d 502, *lv dismissed*62 NY2d 604), or a physical disability *(Nolechek v Gesuale,*46 NY2d 332 [child partially blind]; *Golembe v Blumberg,*262 App Div 759 [child subject to epileptic seizures]), lacks the ability to control the vehicle, there is an insufficient showing that Philip’s automobile was a dangerous instrument when operated by him. Whether a particular object is a dangerous instrument depends not only upon the characteristics of the object but also upon "the age, intelligence, disposition and prior experience of the infant defendant” *(Alessi v Alessi,*103 AD2d 1023, 1024). At the time Philip bought his automobile, it was in good working order and Philip was almost 17 years of age, had successfully completed a drivers’ education course, and possessed a junior operator’s license. The accident involved in this lawsuit occurred about two months after the purchase.

Plaintiff contends that during that two-month period Philip demonstrated propensities that made it likely that he would put his automobile to a dangerous use *(see, Steinberg v Cauchois,*249 App Div 518, 519). Plaintiff bases this primarily upon two incidents in which Philip had caused damage to property by spinning the tires of his automobile. Both incidents occurred only days before the accident and only one incident was known to the parents. The evidence was insufficient to prove that the parents should have known that Philip was likely to use his automobile in a dangerous manner.

Moreover, parents have a duty to protect others from fore*534seeable harm that results from their children’s improvident use of a dangerous instrument only "to the extent that such use is subject to parental control” *(Nolechek v Gesuale, supra,*at 340). Here, plaintiff failed to prove that Philip’s use of the automobile was subject to his parents’ control. The automobile belonged to Philip. He had lived away from home until about two weeks before the accident and at 17 years of age was free to leave whenever he chose.

Contrary to defendants’ contention, the court’s finding that plaintiff was free from contributory negligence is not against the weight of the evidence.

Accordingly, the judgment is modified by reversing the award as against the defendants Vivian and Alfred Heitmann and dismissing the complaint as to them. (Appeals from judgment of Supreme Court, Seneca County, Dugan, J.—negligence.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.