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

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Salim Ghafari, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report  on Form  10-QSB  of Life  Energy &
Technology Holdings, 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-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 this quarterly 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
quarterly report (the "evaluation date"); and
     C)  presented  in  this  quarterly   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 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
functions):

     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.

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
quarterly  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.

Date: April 19, 2004


By:/s/Salim Ghafari
-----------------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent thereof)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6617

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KEITH ANDRE HADDOCK, II, a/k/a Frank, a/k/a Frank White,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cr-00236-TSE-1)

Submitted: September 22, 2022 Decided: September 27, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Andre Haddock, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6617 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith Andre Haddock, II, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Upon review, we discern no 

abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that, under the pertinent 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, compassionate release was not warranted. See United States 

v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329-31 (4th Cir.) (providing standard of review and outlining steps 

for evaluating compassionate release motions), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6617 Doc: 5 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      pursuant to**


**Section
      1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code**








In
      connection with the annual report of Theater Xtreme Entertainment Group, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      the undersigned Scott R. Oglum, being the Principal Executive Officer of the
      Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that, to my knowledge:




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 result of operations of the
                Company.





Date:
      October 13, 2006




/s/
      Scott R. Oglum


Name:
      Scott R. Oglum


Title:
      Chief Executive Officer








The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely 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, 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.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CHARLES CALVIN MOORE, #209229, : 

Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 10-00029-KD-B 

CMS FOUNTAIN HOSPITAL, et al., : 

Defendants. : 

 ORDER 

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the 

issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 

to which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made 

under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B) and dated May 24, 2010 is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion of 

this Court. 

It is ORDERED that Plaintiff pay the $350.00 statutory filing fee within thirty (30) days 

of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee, this action will be DISMISSED without 

prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g). 

 DONE and ORDERED this the 28th day of June 2010. 

 /s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

 KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00029-KD-B Document 10 Filed 06/28/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             229
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          26,371
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,148
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,384,139
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,993,410
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 22,714,390
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,384,390
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,156,406
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,156,406)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,156,406)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Nikolay Tokarev, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Golden Telecom, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by the report based on such evaluation;and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:March 16, 2006   /s/ NIKOLAY TOKAREV   Nikolay Tokarev
! " #$%&' !
!
(! )*"*" 


#(+,-,,-+,	+$,$#	,

.


//////////"//////////

#

"0
















$"
(1

#(1


*2 0
1


!
 "0

2 0
1

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

	
	


	




#30 .


 .

.
4 
 !"" .
  
#$

%&'
 .

003"0
03"
)"
 
*
"


.."

" )"
5 
*6)

*7

0


)6.
#

"

$00""3 " #$

%88 9."

" .09: .
3*6"
0
"
.#;%4


.
"

""
.#$%&''&9.

<
..
6
33*)*
9

		..
0"1

-(+- ;	(,-.


="3
 "*603"
"


03"0
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  0." ! "# 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

		$


-<
3".
7"
3
9**3"".
> 0

 ".**
0



		



1

Judge’s signature

-


1

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

JOEL JACOB JOHNSON 12-00304-001

08091-003

05-09-2013

pro se

✔

✔

30 24 months

05-09-2013

07-08-2015

11-01-2015 United States District Judge

Callie V.S. Granade 

U.S. District Judge

Digitally signed by Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge 

DN: cn=Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge, o=U.S. 

Government, ou=Federal Judiciary, 

email=efile_granade@alsd.uscourts.gov, c=US 

Date: 2015.07.08 10:49:05 -06'00'

Case 1:12-cr-00304-CG-C Document 63 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Real Estate  Fund
XVIII Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB  for
the  period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof  (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XVIII, Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership, and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XVIII,  Inc.,  each  certify, pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  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; and

     2.   The   information  contained  in  the   Report   fairly
          presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial
          condition and results of operations of the Partnership.


                       /s/ Robert P Johnson
                           Robert P. Johnson, President
                           AEI Fund Management XVIII, Inc.
                           Managing General Partner
                           January 7, 2008



                       /s/ Patrick W Keene
                           Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                           AEI Fund Management XVIII, Inc.
                           Managing General Partner
                           January 7, 2008
#### Adams Express Co. *v.*J. J. Guthrie.

Public Carriers — Special Contract — Burden of Proof.

When it appears by tbe proof that a special contract was made with a carrier for| the delivery of freight under circumstances of fairness and good faith, the burden is on the shipper to show that the contract ought not to he enforced because unfair and of its having been imposed upon him in a way that prevented him from examining it and understanding it.

APPEAL FROM McCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

February 18, 1875.

Opinion t.y

Judge Peters:

In the opinion delivered by this court in this case, when it was here on a former occasion, it is said it is only necessary that the carrier shall satisfactorily prove that a special contract was made, under circumstances indicating fairness and good faith; and it is *455then incumbent on the shipper to show that the contract ought not, for some of the reasons indicated, be enforced against him.

*Thomas E. Moss, for appellant.*

*L. D. Husbands, Marshall & Bloomfield, for appellee.*

It appears from the evidence that Curran, Goodwin, Walker & Co., a firm of merchants in the city of New York, were made by appellee his agents to contract for the transportation of the package of goods, for which this suit was brought, to him in Paducah, Ky., with appellant, and in making them his agents, he did not restrict or limit them to any particular form of contract for the transportation of said package. The evidence conduces to show that they contracted with appellant to transport said package to appellee on the terms and according to the stipulations contained in the writing filed in the case, and made part of John J. Cullen’s deposition, and in which it is expressly stipulated that appellant is not to be held liable for any loss or damage to said property while being transported by it to its destination, arising from dangers of railroad, ocean or river navigation, steam, fire in stores or depots, or from any cause whatever, unless in every case the same be proved to have occurred from the fraud or gross negligence of said express company or its servants.

If the agreement in paper “B,” relied upon by appellant, was entered into by the agents of appellee with- it, it must be regarded as the contract of the parties, unless it was not made freely and understandingly on the part of said agents; and it devolved on appellee to show that fact by evidence. The delivery of the paper “B” by appellant to Curran, Goodwin, Walker & Co, and the acceptance of it by them as the agents of appellee, is *prima facie*evidence that the terms and stipulations therein contained were agreed upon by the parties, and is binding on them Appellee cannot avoid it, unless he shows that said writing was imposed upon his said agents, in a way that prevented them from examining said paper, and understanding its contents. As instructions “Nos. i, 2 and 3” given to the jury at the instance of appellee, do not conform to the law of the case as expounded by this court, they should have been refused by the court below, and the judgment must be *reversed*and the cause remanded for a new trial, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL P. ANDERSON, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-00582-N 

 ) 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ) 

Commissioner of Social Security, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

ORDER 

This action is before the Court on an unopposed motion (doc. 18) filed by the 

defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), under sentence four 

of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to enter a judgment of remand to the Commissioner for further 

administrative proceedings. It is the Commissioner’s professed intent that, on remand, 

the Appeals Council will refer the case to an Administrative Law Judge with directions to 

obtain vocational expert evidence to clarify the effect of all assessed limitations on the 

claimant’s occupational base and resolve any conflicts between the vocational expert’s 

testimony and information contained in the U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Dictionary of 

Occupational Titles (4th ed. 1991). See Doc. 18 at 1. The Court is advised that the 

plaintiff has no objection to this requested relief. This action has been referred to the 

undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of judgment 

in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R.Civ.Pro.73 (doc. 20) and pursuant to 

the consent of the parties (doc. 19). 

Case 1:11-cv-00582-N Document 21 Filed 07/13/12 Page 1 of 2
2 

In light of the foregoing, and the plain language of sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 

405(g) empowering this Court “to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a 

judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social 

Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing[,] it is ORDERED that the 

Commissioner’s unopposed motion is hereby GRANTED and that the Commissioner’s 

decision in this case is hereby REVERSED and the case REMANDED pursuant to 

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further administrative proceedings. See

Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 90 (1991). The remand pursuant to sentence four of 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g) makes the plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal 

Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and terminates this Court’s jurisdiction over this 

matter. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 298 (1993). 

DONE this 13th day of July, 2012. 

 /s/ Katherine P. Nelson 

 KATHERINE P. NELSON 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00582-N Document 21 Filed 07/13/12 Page 2 of 2
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 Mines Management, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Glenn M. Dobbs, President and Chief Executive Officer of Mines Management, Inc.,, 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; 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:  March 28, 2005

/s/ Glenn M. Dobbs

Glenn M. Dobbs

President and Chief Executive Officer