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

SECTION 906 SARBANES OXLEY CERTIFICATION


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


In connection with the Quaterly Report of New Century Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
Duquette, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.


May 22, 2006                       /s/ David Duquette
                                   ----------------------------------------
                                   Name:  David Duquette
                                   Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                          Chief Financial Officer


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
required by Section 906 has been provided to Company and will be retained by
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION 

 

I, David Morash, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 3 to the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Axesstel, 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, inlight 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 financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe small business issuer’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 suchevaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this reportany change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability 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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: October 12, 2004 

/s/    David Morash
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       9,151,807
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  146,140
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,570,236
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,643,336
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,841,298
<BONDS>                                      6,300,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          126,169
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,375,869
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,643,336
<SALES>                                      3,782,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,782,500
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,413,559
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             137,499
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,377,373
<INCOME-TAX>                                   561,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   816,373
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
<FN>
<F1> FOR PURPOSES OF THIS EXHIBIT, PRIMARY MEANS BASIC.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

          - [BAC 6735-01]

# TIME AND DATE:

 11:00 a.m., Thursday, January 15, 2015.

# PLACE:

 The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).

# STATUS:

 Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                         The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter                         *Secretary of Labor*                         v.                         *Jim Walter Resources, Inc.,*                         Docket No. SE 2012-681-R (Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge erred in upholding an imminent danger order.)                    

Any person attending this oral argument who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:

 Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Sarah L. Stewart,

Deputy General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2015-00086 Filed 1-5-15; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John R REGESTER, II, also known as Johnny Rotten, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-30305

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 27, 2006.

*685Josette Louise Cassiere, James G. Cowles, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Christopher Albert Aberle, Mandeville, LA, Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

John Regester appeals his guilty-plea conviction of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Regester faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years because of a prior drug felony conviction. *See*21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(viii). The district court sentenced Regester to 262 months of imprisonment. Regester argues that the district court erred when it failed to adequately inform him of the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence as required by Fed.R.Crim.P. ll(b)(l)(I). Where, as here, a defendant fails to object to a Rule 11 error in the district court, this court reviews for plain error. *United States v. Vonn,*535 U.S. 55, 59, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002).

*686The district court informed Regester at his plea hearing that “[t]he maximum possible penalty for Count 1 is a term of imprisonment of not less that ten years nor more than life.... ” Although the district court’s statement at the guilty-plea hearing could have been more artfully phrased, it notified Regester that he faced a sentence of 10 years to life. Moreover, a notice the Government filed prior to the plea hearing and the presentence report both correctly reflected that Regester faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison. Regester does not argue or allege that he would have pleaded differently had the court’s admonition been clearer. *See United States v. Vasquez-Bernal,*197 F.3d 169, 171 (5th Cir.1999). Considering the record as a whole, *Vonn,*535 U.S. at 59, 122 S.Ct. 1043, the district court’s failure to accurately advise Regester of the mandatory minimum sentence does not constitute plain error. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             226
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      751
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (20)
<INVENTORY>                                        214
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,171
<PP&E>                                             901
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (259)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,942
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        105
<COMMON>                                         1,671
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,337)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,312
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,579
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,047
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,394
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,001)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,001)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    325
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,677)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)


</TABLE>
#### Lovette v. York

Case below: 183 N.C. App. — (5 June 2007)

No. 312P07

Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-1211)

Denied 08/23/07
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polydex Pharmaceuticals Limited (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sharon L. Wardlaw, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 result of operations of the Company.

|By /s/SHARON L. WARDLAWSharon L. Wardlaw,
Chief Financial Officer
September 13, 2002 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 

23

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000318299
<NAME>                          Tomahawk Industries, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                           1
<CURRENCY>                                                    US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                            APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                               MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                 JAN-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                        1
<CASH>                                                                 0
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                       0
<PP&E>                                                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                         0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              37578
<BONDS>                                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                                            0
<COMMON>                                                          166373
<OTHER-SE>                                                       (203951)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                           0
<SALES>                                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                       0
<CGS>                                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     (900)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 (900)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
<CHANGES>                                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                                        (900)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                          0



</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Segundo Penafiel, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 279]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered February 14, 2012, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*654The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see *People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257 [2011]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]). Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

GLENDA TOLAR, : 

: 

Plaintiff, : 

: 

v. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0353-M 

: 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, : 

Commissioner of : 

Social Security, : 

: 

Defendant. : 

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT be

entered in favor of Defendant Michael J. Astrue and against

Plaintiff Glenda Tolar.

DONE this 5th day of January, 2010.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00353-M-M Document 21 Filed 01/05/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Hayes *v.*Yawger. Same *v.*Fitch. Same *v.*Van Sickle. Same *v.*Durston *et al.*Same *v.*Howland. Same v. White *et al.*

*(Circuit Court, N. D. New York.*

July 23, 1889.)

Coxe, J.

These causes involve the same question presented in *Hayes*v. *Shoemaker, ante,*319. Ho distinction was made against any of these defendants upon the argument or in the printed briefs. There was an implied understanding, at least, that the cases should stand or fall together. It is therefore unnecessary to file a separate decision in each case. In some of these cases the facts are stronger for the defendant than in the *Shoemaker Case.*In the ease of *Hayes*v. *Durston*they are not so strong; but after a careful examination of the entire testimony I am convinced that all the cases are within the principle of *Whitney*v. *Butler,*118 U. S. 655, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 61, and that in each a judgment must be entered for the defendant..
EXHIBIT
32.1





STATMON
TECHNOLOGIES CORP.





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


19
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 Statmon Technologies Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Geoffrey Talbot, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:




(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.




/s/ Geoffrey P. TalbotGeoffrey
      P. TalbotChief
      Executive OfficerAugust
      27, 2009





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 required
by Section 906, has been provided to Statmon Technologies Corp. and will be
retained by Statmon Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-50734

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Ricardo Lozano, Jr., 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:19-CR-43-2

Before Davis, Elrod, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Ricardo Lozano, Jr., has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Lozano has responded. The record is not sufficiently 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 7, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50734 Document: 00515663083 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2020
No. 19-50734

2

developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Lozano’s claims of 

ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims

without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 

829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein, as well as Lozano’s original and supplemental 

responses. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Lozano’s untimely request for appointment of new counsel on appeal is 

DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

Case: 19-50734 Document: 00515663083 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2020
----

|                       |   |                         |   |   |
|----------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                       |   |                         |   |   |
|  August      12, 2008 |   | /s/      J. Collier Sparks   |   |   |
|                       |   |                         |   |   |
|                       |   | J.      Collier Sparks       |   |   |
|                       |   | Chief      Executive Officer |   |   |
|                       |   |                         |   |   |

----