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

 

**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Dirk A. Sodestrom, certify that:

 

1.                I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Westaff, Inc.

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to take 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 financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer and Iare 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 and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s first 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 officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe 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, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: March 8, 2005

 
| /s/ Dirk A. Sodestrom                              |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dirk A. Sodestrom                                  |
| Senior Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer |
| Westaff, Inc.                                 |
| (Principal Financial Officer)                      |

 

----
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 Trans Energy,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-KSB for the  period  ending  December  31,  2006,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, James
K. Abcouwer,  Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of operations of
         the Company.


/s/   JAMES K. ABCOUWER
-----------------------------
James K. Abcouwer
Chief Executive Officer
April 17, 2007

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by 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 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.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
NUMBERS 13-08-00370-CV 

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

MIKE JONES, Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee. 

_____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 117 District Court 

th

of Nueces County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Mike Jones, pro se, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order

entered by the 117 District Court of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 03-3175-B. th
2

The order subject to appeal, a Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, was signed on April 23,

2008, but the notice of appeal was not filed until June 9, 2008.

 Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant’s notice of appeal

was due on May 23, 2008. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an

appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by rule

26.1, but within the fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for

extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18, 619 (1997)

(construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, appellant must provide a reasonable

explanation for the late filing: it is not enough to simply file a notice of appeal. Id.; Woodard

v. Higgins, 140 S.W.3d 462, 462 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2004, no pet.); In re B.G., 104

S.W.3d 565, 567 (Tex. App.–Waco 2002, no pet.).

On June 11, 2008, the Clerk of this Court sent appellant notice of this defect by

certified mail, but it was returned as unclaimed. On July 21, 2008, the Clerk of this Court,

sent the appellant, by regular mail, notice of this defect so that steps could be taken to

correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not

corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s letter, the appeal would

be dismissed. To date, the letter sent to appellant on July 21, 2008, has not been

returned, and no response has been received from appellant providing a reasonable

explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal.

 The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellant’s

failure to timely perfect his appeal, and appellant’s failure to respond to this Court’s notice,

is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly,
3

the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a)(c).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 25 day of August, 2008. th
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Louis L. Knickerbocker and William C. Hitchcock, certify that:



1.

We have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of R.G. Global Lifestyles, Inc.



2.

Based upon our 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 our knowledge, the financial statements, consolidated 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 we are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including any 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the Evaluation Date); and

c)

presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrants other certifying officers and we have disclosed, based upon our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors or persons performing the equivalent function):



a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data, and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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; and



6.

The registrants other certifying officers and we have indicated in this report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Dated:  October 27, 2004





/s/ Louis L. Knickerbocker

Louis L. Knickerbocker, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



/s/ William C. Hitchcock

William C. Hitchcock, Chief Financial Officer
The court of criminal appeals in Bledsoe v. State held: 1

When faced with an Anders brief and if a later pro se brief is filed, the court of

appeals has two choices. It may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and

issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible

error. Or, it may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00502-CR

Robert Bryan Reeves, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. A-07-0037-S, HONORABLE JAY K. WEATHERBY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Robert Bryan Reeves was convicted of burglary of a habitation with intent

to commit theft, enhanced by one prior felony conviction, and was sentenced to ten years’

imprisonment. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02 (West 2003). Appellant’s appointed attorney has

filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 743-44 (1967). Appellant has filed a pro se brief complaining that the evidence does

not show that the structure in question was a habitation. We affirm the judgment of conviction.

We have considered the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se brief and we

agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We overrule appellant’s sole issue on appeal and affirm the 1
cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Only

after the issues have been briefed by new counsel may the court of appeals address

the merits of the issues raised. 

178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (citations omitted).

 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of 2

his case by the court of criminal appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for

discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See generally Tex. R. App.

P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for

discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date

this Court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The

petition must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the court of criminal

appeals along with the rest of the filings in the cause. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition

for discretionary review should comply with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of appellate procedure.

See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4, 68.5. 

2

judgment of conviction. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment

of conviction.2

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: September 18, 2008

Do Not Publish
In the Matter of JOYCE, Claim for Compensation Under the North Carolina Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program, Claimant-Appellant.

No. COA15-1318.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed in part; Dismissed in part.
Exhibit
10.5

    (English
Translation)

    


    Registration
Notice of Cancelling Equity Pledge

     

    (Daxin
Industry and Commerce) Cancelling Equity Pledge Registration NO.: [2010]
8


     

    Dalian Union-Chuangye
Bonding Co. Ltd:

     

    According
to application, our bureau processes the registration for cancelling equity
pledge on September 10th, 2010.
The original equity registration is below:

     

    Equity
registration NO.: 210231100041Z

     

    Company
who own Equity Rights: Dalian Heavy Mining Equipment Manufacturing, Co.
Ltd

     

    Amount of
Equity: 3,600,000 RMB

     

    People
who pay for Equity: Peili Wang

     

    People
who own Equity: Dalian Union-Chuangye Bonding Co. Ltd

     

    Seal by
Dalian Industry and Commerce Bureau

     

    September
10th,
2010
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.01

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


Board of Directors and Shareholders
ENVOY Corporation

We have audited the consolidated balance sheet of ENVOY Corporation and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the year ended December 31,
1998. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's
management and are not separately presented herein. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free
of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates
made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our
opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above and not separately
presented herein present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial position of ENVOY Corporation and subsidiaries at December 31, 1998,
and the consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for the
year ended December 31, 1998, in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States.


                                              /s/      ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                              ---------------------------------
                                                       ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Nashville, Tennessee
January 29, 1999
##### 



Exhibit 32-1

Certification by the Chief Executive
Officer

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 on
Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended January 26, 2004,
of CKE Restaurants, Inc. (the Company) as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Andrew F. Puzder, Chief Executive
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 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or
    Section 780(d)); and
|
| | 2. The information contained in the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.                  

In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed
and delivered this certificate as of the date set forth opposite
his signature below.



| |     |                     
| | --- | --------------------
| | By: | /s/ ANDREW F. PUZDER

| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| | 
| |  | Andrew F. Puzder       
| |  | Chief Executive Officer

Date: December 17, 2004
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 19

- 00150

- CR

LOWELL THOMAS REDDEN, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 188th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 40208

- A

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.2 

### ORDER Appellant Lowell Thomas Redden was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Redden has appealed from that conviction and the resulting sentence. On January 10, 2020, Redden’s court

- appointed appellate counsel,
Natalie A. Anderson, filed an Anders 1 brief, and on February 18, 2020, Redden filed a pro se motion for access to the appellate record for purposes of preparing a response to his counsel’s
Anders brief. Redden’s motion for access to the appellate record is granted. Under Kelly v. State , 2 we are required to enter an order specify ing the procedure to be followed to ensure Redden’s access
to the record. On February 19, 2020, Anderson advised this Court that she would mail a complete paper copy of the appellate record to Redden. Allowing fifteen days for the record to be delivered t o Redden and giving him thirty days to prepare his pro se response, we hereby set April 6, 2020, as the deadline for Redden to file his pro se response to his counsel’s Anders brief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT
DATE: February 25, 2020

1 See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

2 Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 321

– 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
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 RG Global Lifestyles, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2007, as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      William Hitchcock, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2001, that:





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 results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      February 19, 2008




/s/
                Brian RuttencutterBrian
                RuttencutterChief
                Accounting Officer
# CE2004078EN.01045201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/452 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/452

---

(2004/C 78 E/0477)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3301/03

by Nicole Thomas-Mauro (UEN) to the Commission

(7 November 2003)

Subject:   Info-points Europe

Subject:

A message has recently been sent to the various Info-points Europe informing them that they were to lose European subsidies.

The Info-points Europe were set up to enable members of the public to obtain information about Europe.

The withdrawal of subsidies manifestly conflicts with the new information strategy adopted in 2002. The Commission seems to take the view that the entry into force of the new Financial Regulation on 1 January 2003 is a sufficient condition for this withdrawal.

What financial support systems does the Commission propose to introduce?

Are any other measures planned to enable these bodies to operate?

---
exhibit101.htm




Exhibit 10.1







AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX (REMEDIAL AMENDMENT) TO THE


LOWE’S 401(k) PLAN







This Amendment Number Six to the Lowe’s 401(k) Plan, as amended and restated effective February 3, 2007 (the “Plan”), is adopted by Lowe’s Companies, Inc. (the “Company”).


 


W I T N E S S E T H:


 


WHEREAS, the Company currently maintains the Plan; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company has applied for a determination from the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) that the Plan is qualified under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the IRS has requested that certain amendments be made to the Plan as a condition to issuing such determination; and


 


WHEREAS, this Amendment incorporates the IRS requested amendments to the Plan; and


 


WHEREAS, under Section 15 of the Plan, the Company may amend the Plan in whole or in part at any time;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends the Plan effective as of January 1, 2009, as follows:


 


1.           The effective date of the amendment to the definition of “Statutory Compensation” that was made to the Plan in Amendment Number Three dated June 16, 2009 shall be changed to January 1, 2009.


 


2.           Except as expressly or by necessary implication amended hereby, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Company has adopted this Amendment Number Six to the Plan effective as of the effective date set forth above.


 


LOWE’S COMPANIES, INC.












By:  ____________________________________________________                                                                        



	
Marshall A. Croom, Senior Vice President & Chief Risk 


Officer







 



	
Chairman, Administrative Committee of Lowe’s 


Companies, Inc.







 


 


_______________________________________________________



	
Date
STATE of North Carolina v. Nicolas Olivares PINEDA.

No. COA15-800.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 16, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No error in part; remanded for resentencing.