alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Tim Leong, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of SEGlobal Equities Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis quarterly report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport; 

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant andhave:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosurecontrols and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date ofthis quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors andthe audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for theregistrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant'sinternal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I haveindicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changesin internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affectinternal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.

Date: May 15, 2003

          /s/ Tim Leong**By**:_____________________________**Tim Leong, Chief Financial Officer**
#### In the Matter of Shawn E., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Respondent.

[665 NYS2d 901]

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Richard Ross, J.), entered on or about July 8, 1996, which dismissed the petition as jurisdictionally defective, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition reinstated.

As conceded by respondent, the court’s conclusion that the petition was deficient because it was self-verified and not notarized was erroneous *(see,*CPL 100.30 [1] [d]; *Matter of Shermaine J.,*208 AD2d 158).

Contrary to respondent’s other arguments, we find that the petition was factually sufficient *(Matter of Dirhim A.,*178 AD2d 339) and was not otherwise defective *(Matter of Samuel E.,*240 AD2d 251, *lv denied*90 NY2d 812). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.
#### Jeffrey R. McKEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Loren TAYLOR; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-35036.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 10, 2011.

Jeffrey R. Mckee, Connell, WA, pro se.

Sara Di Vittorio, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jeffrey R. McKee, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access to courts, retaliation, and other claims. We *712have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal of a complaint without leave to amend. *Lopez v. Smith,*203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). We vacate and remand.

The district court dismissed McKee’s original complaint without providing notice of the deficiencies and an opportunity to amend with the benefit of that notice, and also did not address McKee’s retaliation claim. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand to the district court with instructions to address the retaliation claim and provide McKee an opportunity to file an amended complaint. *See Weilburg v. Shapiro,*488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.2007) (“Dismissal of a *pro se*complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”); *Ferdik v. Bonzelet,*963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir.1992) (“[B]efore dismissing a pro se complaint the district court must provide the litigant with notice of the deficiencies in his complaint in order to ensure that the litigant uses the opportunity to amend effectively.”); *McGuckin v. Smith,*974 F.2d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir.1992), *overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller,*104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc).

Appellees shall bear the costs on appeal.

Appellees’ request for judicial notice is granted.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>


                                   Exhibit 23
            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Cecil Bancorp, Inc.
Elkton, Maryland


         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement Numbers 333-35120 on Form S-3 and 033-81374 on Form S-8 of Cecil
Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiaries (Cecil Bancorp) of our report dated January 21,
2005, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Cecil Bancorp as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income,
changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years then ended, which
report appears in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Cecil
Bancorp.


/s/ Stegman & Company
-----------------------
Baltimore, Maryland
March 30, 2005
Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

As adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter endedSeptember 30, 2008 of Integrated BioPharma, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),Jeffrey R. Leach, thePresident andChief Executive Officer of Integrated BioPharma, Inc.certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to his knowledge:         

|  | (1)      | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (2)      | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.         

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

Dated:     November 14, 2008                  

                                   By:/s/Jeffrey R. Leach

                                   Jeffrey R. Leach

                                   President andChief Executive        Officer
#### In the Matter of Rose S. Mancini, Respondent, v Edmond R. Mancini, Appellant.

[678 NYS2d 498]

—Motion by the appellant on appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, both entered April 5, 1996, in effect, to waive the requirements of 22 NYCRR 670.10 (g) regarding certification of the record on appeal. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated December 12, 1996, the motion was *519referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeals, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Lemer, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, John L. Finlayson, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 30, 2004 of Susquehanna Media Co.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
c. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared; d. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and e. Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
6. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
a. All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 11, 2004     /s/ John L. Finlayson   John L. Finlayson Vice President and CFO
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio LUA-BERMEJO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-50435.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

March 14, 2011.

Arnold Dale Blankenship, Assistant U.S., Jill L. Burkhardt, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Mark R. Rehe, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Shaffy Moeel, Esquire, Trial, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Sergio Lua-Bermejo appeals from his conviction for attempted entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Lua-Bermejo contends that the district court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the indictment because the prior removal alleged in the indictment was the product of a fundamentally unfair deportation proceeding. First, Lua-Bermejo contends that his appeal waiver was invalid. The record reflects that his waiver was “considered and intelligent.” *United States v. Estrada-Torres,*179 F.3d 776, 781 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam), *overruled on other grounds by United States v. Rivera-Sanchez,*247 F.3d 905 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).

Second, Lua-Bermejo contends that he was not adequately advised of possible eligibility for discretionary relief under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1994). There was no possibility that Lua-Bermejo was eligible for relief because he did not have the requisite seven years of unrelin-quished domicile. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1994); *United States v. Lopez-Velasquez,*629 F.3d 894, 896-901 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). Accordingly, the immigration judge did not have a duty to inform him of such relief. *See Lopez-Velasquez,*629 F.3d at 901.

Finally, Lua-Bermejo contends that his waiver of the right to counsel was not knowing and voluntary. This contention was not raised in the district court and we decline to consider it for the first time on appeal. *See Rhoades v. Henry,*598 F.3d 495, 501 & n. 7 (9th Cir.2010).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
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 NextMart, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), the undersigned officers of the Company, 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 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/ Carla Zhou                             |    |  | /s/ Wang Yihan                                                                                                                                      
|Carla Zhou
        Chief Financial Officer |    |  | Wang Yihan
        Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                          
|Date: November 14, 2011                    |    | 
|
---

EXHIBIT 13.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Michael Cytrynbaum, President of Central Minera Corp., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:

1. The Annual Report on Form 20-F of Central Minera Corp. for the year ended June 30, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

By: Michael Cytrynbaum

December 29, 2008

Michael Cytrynbaum

President, Central Minera Corp.



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





---
#### Gus J. STEVENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Darrell JEFFERSON and Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 241, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-3654.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted May 4, 2011.*

Decided May 4, 2011.

Gus J. Stevens, Romeoville, IL, pro se.

Sherrie E. Voyles, Jacobs, Burns, Orlove & Hernandez, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge, TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge, DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.

*

 After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

ORDER

Gus Stevens, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment in favor of Local 241 of the Amalgamated Transit Union and its president, Darrell Jefferson. Stevens is a union member working for the Chicago Transit Authority and also serves as an elected board member of Local 241, a paid position. Stevens sued the defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after Local 241 complied with Notices of Levy from the IRS directing that his salary as a board member be turned over to satisfy unpaid taxes, interest, and penalties exceeding $150,000. He concedes the validity of the Notices of Levy but claims that the defendants violated the Fifth and Eighth Amendments by complying with them. Stevens also claims that the defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by making false statements to federal officials. He seeks damages and an injunction against further turnover of his salary. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim.

*640Stevens appeals, but his appeal is frivolous. Suits under § 1988 are meant to deter state actors (and private parties acting so closely in concert with them that they too should be considered state actors) from using the “color of state law” to deprive individuals of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Fries *v. Helsper,*146 F.3d 452, 457 (7th Cir.1998). Unions and union officials are not state actors, *Hollinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chicago Lodge No. 7,*570 F.3d 811, 815 (7th Cir.2009); *Messman v. Helmke,*133 F.3d 1042, 1044 (7th Cir.1998), and, regardless, Stevens concedes that Local 241 did nothing more than comply with valid Notices of Levy. As for § 1001, neither criminal statutes generally, *see Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A.,*511 U.S. 164, 190, 114 S.Ct. 1439, 128 L.Ed.2d 119 (1994), nor § 1001 in particular, afford civil plaintiffs a private cause of action, *Andrews v. Heaton,*483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir.2007); *Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Reeves,*816 F.2d 130, 137 (4th Cir.1987).

At bottom this litigation tries to extend a previous tax-protestor suit against the IRS and one of its collection agents. *See Stevens v. IRS,*No. 08 C 4071 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 17, 2008). We direct Stevens to show cause within 14 days why we should not impose sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 for pursuing a frivolous appeal.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of L Q Corporation, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William J. Fox,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

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


Dated:  May 13, 2005


                                                      /s/ William J. Fox
                                                      -----------------------
                                                      William J. Fox
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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








I, Thomas J. Neavitt, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:





(1)           The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 2) of Ingen Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2008 ( the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.








Date:  August 5, 2010








/s/Thomas J. Neavitt


Thomas J. Neavitt


Principal Financial and Accounting Officer