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

                            SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION


I, John Page, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of LEGALPLAY
     ENTERTAINMENT INC.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statement, and other financial
     information included in this annual 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 annual 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     (a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 the annual 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 annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

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

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
     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 weakness 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

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual
report whether 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.



/s/ John Page                           Date: March 31, 2006
------------------------------
John Page
Director / Treasurer
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re 7677 Real Street, LLC , 5805 Washington Avenue Trust, Nitzan

Ben

- Nun, and Sonoma Apartments, LLC, Relators

Appellate case number: 01

- 16

- 00683

- CV

Trial court case number: 2013

- 43259

Trial court: 234th District Court of Harris County

On February 13, 2017, this Court issued an order asking the parties to provide a status report in this original proceeding. On February 16, 2017, counsel for relators and real pa rty in

interest filed responses , advising the Court that the parties were in the process of drafting a final settlement agreement.

Accordingly, we ORDER this cause abated for 45 days to allow the parties to complete settlement negotiations and to obtain an y necessary bankruptcy court approval.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active docket. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the proceeding filed by either party, or the court may rei nstate the proceeding on its own motion.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

_

/s/ Harvey Brown
 Acting individually

Date: February 23, 2017
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Cedric WOODS, Appellant. Cedric WOODS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 44591, 46950.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 3, 1993.

Rebecca L. Kurz, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and BERREY and SMART, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

*ORDER*

Appeal from conviction of robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, felonious restraint and two counts of armed criminal action.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, KPMG LLP



 Exhibit 10(i) 
  
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 
  
 The Board of Directors of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company and 
 Contract owners of Massachusetts Mutual Variable Annuity Separate Account 4: 
  
 We consent to the use in this Pre-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement
No. 333-131007 on Form N-4 of our report dated March 31, 2006 with respect to the statement of assets and liabilities of Massachusetts Mutual Variable Annuity Separate Account 4 as of December 31, 2005 and the related statements of
operations and changes in net assets and the financial highlights for each period in the two-year period then ended and of our report dated February 24, 2006 with respect to the statutory statement of financial position of Massachusetts Mutual
Life Insurance Company as of December 31, 2005 and 2004 and the related statutory statements of income, changes in policyholders’ contingency reserves, and cash flows for the years then ended, both appearing in the Statement of Additional
Information, which is part of such Registration Statement, and to the reference to our firm under the heading “Experts” in the Statement of Additional Information. 
  
 Our report dated March 31, 2006, refers to other auditors whose report on the financial highlights of Massachusetts Mutual Variable
Annuity Separate Account 4 for each year in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, dated February 23, 2005, expressed an unqualified opinion on those statements. 
  
 Our report dated February 24, 2006 includes explanatory language that states that the Company prepared the statutory financial
statements using statutory accounting practices prescribed or permitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Insurance, which practices differ from U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Accordingly, our report states that the
statutory financial statements are not presented fairly in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles and further states that those statements are presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with statutory accounting
practices. In addition, our report refers to other auditors whose report on the statutory financial statements of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company for the year ended December 31, 2003, dated March 5, 2004 (except with respect to
the matter discussed in Note 17, as to which the date is March 14, 2005), expressed an unqualified opinion on those statements and included explanatory language that described the use of statutory accounting practices, which practices differ
from accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, and the adoption, effective January 1, 2003, of Statement of Statutory Accounting Principles No. 86, “Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging,
Income Generation, and Replication (Synthetic Asset) Transactions.” 
  
 /s/ KPMG LLP 
 Hartford, Connecticut 
 November 2, 2006
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

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

DENNIS WATSON, JR., Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0837 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2008-007760-005

The Honorable Steven P. Lynch, Judge Pro Tempore

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Dennis Watson, Jr., Eloy

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, Judge Diane M. Johnsen and Judge 

Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 12-12-2017
STATE v. WATSON

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM: 

¶1 Petitioner Dennis Watson, Jr. seeks review of the superior 

court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner's second 

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 discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court's order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10336]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Corps of Engineers


Available Surplus Real Property at the Seneca Army Depot, located 
in Romulus, NY

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies the surplus real property located at 
Seneca Army Depot, 5786 State Road Route 96, Romulus, New York.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This surplus property is available under the 
provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
1949 and the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless 
Assistance Act of 1994. Notices of interest should be forwarded to 
Commander, Seneca Army Depot, ATTN: LRA/DeMuth, Building 101, Romulus, 
New York 14541-5001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Additional information regarding 
particular properties identified in this Notice (i.e., acreage, floor 
plans, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), contact Mr. 
Randy Williams, Army Corps of Engineers, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 2007, 
New York, NY 10278-0090 (telephone 212-264-6122, fax 212-264-0230); or 
Mr. Steve Absolom, Base Environmental Coordinator, Seneca Army Depot, 
Building 123, Romulus, New York 14541-5001 (607-869-1309).
    The Surplus real property at Seneca Army Depot totals 10,310 acres 
of land in fee, improved with nine hundred twenty seven structures 
(927) including thirty (35) maintenance shops and a machine shop, 
demilitarization facilities on post; a seven thousand (7000) foot 
runway on post, contiguous with ammunition and general storage; forty 
two (42) miles of railroad track; one hundred thirty nine (139) miles 
of road; one hundred eighty (180) sets of family quarters; and a four 
hundred fifty (450) person barracks complex; and various other tracts 
of land.
Jay B. Hecht,
Chief, Real Estate Division.
[FR Doc. 96-10336 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-06-M
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

The undersigned, David Johnson, the Chief Executive Officer, Secretary and Treasurer, of Park Place Energy Corp. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, as amended, fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| | "David Johnson"David JohnsonPresident, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and a director
(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
Date:  November 12, 2010
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Park Place Energy Corp. and will be retained by Park Place Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

__________
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Waldron, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.), rendered June 8, 1988, convicting him of assault in the first degree (three counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (two counts), reckless endangerment in the first degree, assault in the second degree (four counts), criminal mischief in the second degree, and resisting arrest, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that counts 2 and 3 (assault in the first degree) and counts 10 and 11 (assault in the second *486degree) of the indictment were so vague as to warrant their dismissal because they did not adequately apprise him of the operative facts constituting the crimes of assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree. However, this contention has not been preserved for appellate review, inasmuch as the defendant did not raise it in his omnibus motion *(see,*CPL 210.20, 210.25; *People v Iannone,*45 NY2d 589, 600; *People v Wong,*133 AD2d 184, 185; *People v Di Noia,*105 AD2d 799, 800, *cert denied*471 US 1022). In any event, although counts 2, 3, 10 and 11 of the indictment did not specify the victim of the alleged assaults, that information was provided "by a bill of particulars * * * designed to insure that the defendant [was] supplied with sufficient information to properly prepare his defense (CPL 200.90). [Thus] the defendant [was] adequately and timely informed of the precise nature of the charges he [was] to meet” *(People v Fitzgerald,*45 NY2d 574, 580).

In addition, the defendant’s convictions on count 1 (intentional assault in the first degree) and count 2 (reckless assault in the first degree) were neither repugnant nor inconsistent *(see, People v Moloi,*135 AD2d 576, 577-578).

The defendant’s further contention that the court never rendered a verdict on counts 16 and 17 of the indictment is without merit. At the end of the trial, on May 4, 1988, the court rendered a verdict with respect to the first 15 counts of the indictment. Thereafter, on May 15, 1988, the court rendered a verdict on the sixteenth and seventeenth counts of the indictment. No issue is preserved for appellate review with respect to the delay in rendering the latter verdict *(see, People v Woodley,*141 AD2d 587, 588; *People v Andrews,*102 AD2d 894). In any event, we find that the court’s delay was reasonable *(see, People v Di Marcantonio,*117 AD2d 612, 613; *People v Andrews, supra).*

The defendant’s other contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10631]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Applications

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications.

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

    The following applicants have applied for permits to conduct 
certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided 
pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.).

PRT-814105

Applicant: Dr. Nicola Anthony, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 
Wisconsin.

    The applicant requests a permit to take (collect) Karner blue 
butterflies (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) at various locations in 
Wisconsin. Proposed collection activities are for the purpose of 
enhancement of survival of the species through scientific research.

PRT-814107

Applicant: Mark C. Hove, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, 
Minnesota.

    The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release) 
Higgins' eye (Lampsilis higginsi) and winged mapleleaf (Quadrula 
fragosa) in the St. Croix River, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Proposed 
activities are for the purpose of enhancement of survival of the 
species through scientific research.
    Written data or comments should be submitted to the Regional 
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological 
Service Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-
4056, and must be received within 30 days of the date of this 
publication.
    Documents and other information submitted with this application are 
available for review by any party who submits a written request for a 
copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Division of Ecological Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort 
Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056. Telephone: (612/725-3536 x250); Fax: 
(612/725-3526).

    Dated: April 24, 1996.
John A. Blankenship,
Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Region 3, Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
[FR Doc. 96-10631 Filed 4-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Anthony Carrington, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J. at plea; Lynn R. Kotler, J. at sentencing), rendered December 14, 2011, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of aggravated harassment in the second degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Jennifer G. Schecter, J. at plea; Lynn R. Kotler, J. at sentencing), rendered December 14, 2011, affirmed.</p><p>Application by appellant's counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted (<i>see Anders v California</i>, 386 US 738 [1967]; <i>People v Saunders</i>, 52 AD2d 833 [1979]). We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to <i>Anders</i>, and, upon an independent review of the record, agree that there is no valid appealable issue that could be raised on appeal.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: February 05, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 86 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19642-19643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10949]



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

[[Page 19643]]


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[NAFTA-00854]


United Technologies Automotive Interior Systems Division 
Morganfield, Kentucky; Notice of Termination of Certification

    This notice terminates the Certification Regarding Eligibility to 
Apply for NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment Assistance issued by the 
Department on March 28, 1996, for all workers of United Technologies 
Automotive, Interior Systems Division, Morganfield, Kentucky. The 
notice was published in the Federal Register on April 9, 1996 (61 FR 
15833).
    At the request of the company official, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers at 
Morganfield, Kentucky were engaged in employment related to the 
production of automotive interior plastic consoles. New findings show 
that the imports from Canada reported by the company official were 
components, not interior plastic consoles. Therefore, criterion (2) of 
paragraph (a)(1) of Section 250 of the Trade Act of 1974 was not met. 
The imports of components from Mexico or Canada cannot be considered 
like or directly competitive with interior plastic consoles.
    Since the workers of the subject firm have been determined not to 
be adversely affected by imports from Mexico or Canada and the company 
did not shift production of interior plastic consoles to Mexico or 
Canada, the continuation of the certification would serve no purpose 
and the certification has been terminated.
    A Trade Adjustment Assistance investigation (TA-W-32,264) to 
determine worker eligibility for benefits under the Trade Act of 1974, 
will be instituted on April 22, 1996. A determination on worker 
eligibility should be made within 60 days of the institution date.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 19th day of April 1996.
Russell T. Kile,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 96-10949 Filed 5-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M