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




CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Joseph
Tik Tung WONG, certify that:




1.           I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2006 of China Premium Lifestyle Enterprise, 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 that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.




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 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 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: May
28, 2010





/s/ Joseph Tik Tung WONGJoseph
      Tik Tung WONGChief
      Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
#### Dennis L. CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 56070.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 12, 1989.

Steven E. Jordon, Farmington, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John P. Pollard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

CRIST, Judge.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Movant, following a plea agreement, pled guilty to the charges of burglary in the second degree and failure to return rental property. In exchange, the prosecutor dismissed one charge of defrauding a secured creditor and nine counts of misdemeanor bad check charges. In addition, he promised not to file an attempted stealing charge and not to make any recommendation regarding movant’s sentence.

At movant’s sentencing hearing the prosecutor recommended movant’s sentences run consecutively. After a brief discussion he realized his mistake and withdrew the recommendation. The court later sentenced movant to seven years on the burglary charge and five years on the rental property return charge. The sentences were to run consecutively. The trial court explicitly stated the consecutive sentence was based on movant’s record of prior felonies and a very unfavorable pre-sentence investigation report, not the prosecutor’s withdrawn recommendation.

Movant’s point on appeal is he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing because the trial court should have allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea following the prosecutor violating the plea agreement by making a recommendation at sentencing. To qualify for an evidentiary hearing, he must allege facts, not conclusions; raising matters not refuted by the record; and the matters complained of must have resulted in prejudice to the movant. *Swan v. State,*757 S.W.2d 248, 249[1] (Mo.App.1988).

The transcript of movant’s guilty plea sets forth the terms of the plea arrangement. The movant acknowledged that the court may impose any sentence within the lawful range permitted by law. The transcript of the sentencing hearing clearly shows the prosecutor’s recommendation was withdrawn. The trial court stated why it sentenced movant to consecutive terms and that it did not rely on the errant recommendation. Movant failed to plead any facts not refuted by the record. The evi-dentiary hearing was properly denied. *Id.*

Judgment affirmed.

GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-13773, 333-63967, 333-82323, 333-57362, 333-73562) of our
report dated March 21, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Peerless Systems Corporation included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 31, 2002.

                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Los Angeles, California
April 30, 2002
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kristan STANDISH, Appellant.

Nos. WD 49728, WD 51307.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 16, 1996.

Barbara Hoppe, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and HANNA and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Kristan Standish guilty of attempting to escape from confinement. On appeal, he complains that he did not receive a speedy trial and that his due process rights were violated because he was physically restrained during the trial. He also complains that the circuit court erroneously denied his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief because he established that his attorney was ineffective for failing to disqualify a venire person. We disagree and affirm the judgment of conviction and denial of post-conviction relief. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-7393

Nissan North America, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7490

ROBERT HENRY DAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:09-cv-01720-PJM)

Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Henry Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert H. Davis appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his action seeking correction of his presentence 

investigation report, pursuant to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 

§ 552a(d)(2) (2006), as well as its order denying his motion for 

reconsideration of that dismissal. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s orders. See Davis v. United States, No. 8:09-

cv-01720-PJM (D. Md. July 10, 2009; filed July 29, 2009

& entered July 30, 2009). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Money Tree Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 25, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Bradley D. Bellville, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven P. Morrison, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of The
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our 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, as amended; 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: May 9, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Bradley D. Bellville
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | Bradley D. Bellville    
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer 
|                  |  |  | 
|Date: May 9, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Steven P. Morrison  
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | Steven P. Morrison      
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.2











Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to the use of our report dated March 23, 2007 (except Note 8 as to which the date is June 5, 2008) with respect to the consolidated results of operations, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the cumulative period from inception on August 21, 2002 to December 31, 2006 (not separately presented herein) of GeoGlobal Resources Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.











CALGARY, ALBERTA                                                                                                          Ernst & Young LLP


March 23, 2007 except for Note 8,                                                                                        CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 76 (Thursday, April 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9800]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; COPS AHEAD and 
COPS FAST Grant Programs; Notice

AGENCY: Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services.

ACTION: Notice of final program guidelines adopting with no changes.

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

SUMMARY: On January 18, 1995, the Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services, U.S. Department of Justice published, for a 45-day public 
comment period, interim guidelines to accompany the COPS AHEAD and COPS 
FAST programs (60 FR 3648). The 45-day period elapsed with one comment 
received and the interim guidelines are adopted as final.

DATES: Final guidelines are effective April 20, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charlotte C. Black, Assistant General Counsel, Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice, 1100 Vermont 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005; telephone (202) 514-3750.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 
Number for COPS AHEAD and COPS FAST is 16.710.

    Dated: April 10, 1995.
Joseph E. Brann,
Director.
[FR Doc. 95-9800 Filed 4-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4957 

To apply the requirements of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 

to a vacancy in the office of the Secretary of Labor, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2023 

Mr. KILEY (for himself and Ms. FOXX) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To apply the requirements of the Federal Vacancies Reform 

Act of 1998 to a vacancy in the office of the Secretary 

of Labor, 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 ‘‘Department of Labor 

5 Succession Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPLYING VACANCIES ACT TO VACANCY IN OFFICE 

7 OF SECRETARY OF LABOR. 

8 Section 1 of the Act of April 17, 1946 (60 Stat. 91; 

9 29 U.S.C. 552) is amended by striking the second and 

10 third sentences and inserting the following: ‘‘The Deputy 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4957 IH

1 Secretary is authorized to exercise the functions and per2 form the duties of the first assistant of the Secretary of 

3 Labor within the meaning of section 3345 of title 5, 

4 United States Code, and shall perform such other duties 

5 as may be required by law or prescribed by the Secretary 

6 of Labor.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Margie Ann ERNST, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Edward Paul ERNST, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 66571.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.

Aug. 22, 1995.

Motions for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 25, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied Dec. 19, 1995.

Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Overruled Dec. 19, 1995.

Jeffrey S. Pauli, Clayton, for appellant.

Theodore S. Schechter, Michael L. Schechter, Philip E. Adams, Schechter & Watkins, P.C., Clayton, for respondent.

Before PUDLOWSKI, P.J., and CRANDALL and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal of the dissolution decree ending a twenty-eight year marriage. Husband challenges the division of property, maintenance award to wife and order requiring him to pay wife’s attorneys fees. We have carefully considered the trial court’s findings and the record and find no error. The lower court considered all of the relevant factors in deciding the issues and there is substantial evidence on the record to support its decision. Therefore, we discern no jurisprudential value in issuing an extended legal opinion. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel Steele, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J., at hearings, trial and sentence), rendered September 14, 1988, which convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of third degree robbery and sentenced him, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate prison term of 3 Vi to 7 years, is unanimously affirmed.

At the start of trial, one of the selected jurors failed to appear. When a telephone call was placed to the missing juror’s home, it was learned that the juror and his wife had left their home (also in The Bronx) at 9:30 a.m. for an unknown destination. When the juror still had not appeared at 11:35 a.m., the court discharged him and substituted an alternate, over defense objections. The record shows that the Trial Judge made a reasonable attempt to ascertain the whereabouts of the absent juror, why the juror was absent, and when the juror would be present *(People v Page,*72 NY2d 69, 73 [1988]). Under the circumstances, it was not an abuse of discretion for the Trial Judge to replace the juror with the first alternate. *(People v Morales,*158 AD2d 404 [1st Dept 1990].)

Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the court properly received into evidence the testimony of two police officers to the effect that each had canvassed the area of the crime with the complainant before arresting the defendant. This testimony was necessary to explain the actions of the police officers in making the arrest and to prevent speculation by the jury as to the basis for the arrest. *(See, People v Candelario,*156 AD2d 191 [1st Dept 1989].) Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kassal, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
  **CERTIFICATION
        OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 **PURSUANT
        TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
  The
        following certification accompanies the issuer’s Quarterly Report on Form
        10-QSB, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, and is not filed, as
        provided in Release 33-8212, 34-47551.
  In
        connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Sunbelt Bancshares,
        Inc.
        (“ Sunbelt ”)
        on
        Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
        I,
        Jerry Burnett, Chief Executive Officer of Sunbelt, hereby 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) 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
                  Sunbelt.
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Sunbelt and will be retained by Sunbelt and furnished to the Securities and
        Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
  Dated:
                  August 15, 2005/s/
                  Jerry BurnettJerry
                  BurnettChief
                  Executive Officer
 
 
 19
---

Exhibit 32.2

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

The undersigned, Edward Miller, the Chief Financial Officer of
KRANEM CORPORATION (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this
statement this 23rdday of August, 2012.

| | /s/ EdwardMiller                           
| | -------------------------------------------
| | Edward Miller                              
| | Chief Financial Officer                    
| | (Principal Financial and AccountingOfficer)

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

The forgoing statement is being furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,
whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.

URIAN YOUNG , Petitioner

.
No. 1 CA

- CR 22

- 0532 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 19 94

- 0 10928 The Honorable Scott S. Minder , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL
Maricopa C ounty Attorney ’ s Office , Phoenix By Krista Wood Counsel for Respondent
Urian Young , San Luis Petitioner FILED 4-4-2023STATE v. YOUNG Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Acting Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Michael S. Catlett and Judge Anni Hill Foster delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM :
¶1 Petitioner Urian Young seeks review of the superior court’s order dismissing his petition for post

- conviction relief

. This is petitioner’s fourth petition.
¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of disc retion on review).
¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order dismissing the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.
¶4 We grant revie w and deny relief.