alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Pamela J. Montpelier, hereby certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Service Bancorp, Inc.;

(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4) The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the 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 being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the 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 such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter 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 and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control 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 in the 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 involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal controls over financial reporting.



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ PAMELA J. MONTPELIER
|Pamela J. Montpelier    
|Chief Executive Officer 
|November 13, 2006
§ 281.205 General rules. ( a ) *Priority of service categories* — ( 1 ) *Priority 1.* Each interstate pipeline shall establish a new high-priority use category of service designated priority one (1) which shall include all the high-priority entitlements calculated in accordance with § 281.206 and those storage injection volumes calculated in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
( 2 ) *Priority 2.* Each interstate pipeline shall establish a new priority of service category designated priority two (2) which shall include all the essential agricultural use requirements calculated in accordance with § 281.207 and those storage injection volumes calculated in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
( 3 ) *Other priority of service categories.* Each interstate pipeline may retain the priority of service categories in its currently effective tariff, but such categories shall be placed at priorities below the new priorities 1 and 2. Each interstate pipeline shall reduce the entitlements in all other existing categories of service to the extent such entitlements have been placed into the new priority of service categories 1 or 2.
( b ) *Method of curtailment.* All deliveries to all customers of the interstate pipeline for all volumes of natural gas not included in priorities 1 and 2 shall be fully curtailed by the interstate pipeline before priorities 1 and 2 entitlements are curtailed. Deliveries for priority 2 entitlements shall be fully curtailed by the interstate pipelines (in accordance with the currently effective curtailment plan) before priority 1 entitlements are curtailed by the interstate pipelines. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to alter the operation of any “small customer” or “small distributor” exemption or waiver (as defined in an interstate pipeline's currently effective curtailment plan).
( c ) *Storage* — ( 1 ) *General rule.* Interstate pipelines shall classify customer storage injection volumes in the same manner as that used in the currently effective curtailment plan.
( 2 ) *Storage sprinkling.* Interstate pipelines which classify customer storage injection volumes on the basis of the actual end-use of the natural gas shall recalculate storage injection volumes placed in each priority of service category based upon the index of entitlements to be filed on September 15.
( 3 ) *Other treatment of storage.* Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, no interstate pipeline shall recalculate or reclassify any customer storage injection volumes, and no customer storage injection volumes shall be included as priority 1 or 2 entitlements.
[44 FR 26862, May 8, 1979, as amended by Order 29-C, 44 FR 61344, Oct. 25, 1979; Order 145, 46 FR 27913, May 22, 1981]
#### § 131.51 [Reserved]
#### Frederick Rudolph *v.*German Mutual Fire Ins. Co. of North Chicago.

Former *judgment—whether a bar to second suit.*Where a former suit was brought upon the same cause of action before a justice of the peace, and a verdict returned against the plaintiff, and the docket showed a motion for a new trial and continuance, and a subsequent continuance, and then a dismissal of the suit, without showing a disposition of the motion: *Held,*that the former suit was no bar to the second, as no judgment was rendered on the verdict.

*191Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. William A. Porter, Judge, presiding.

Mr. George W. Parices, for the appellant.

Messrs. Barber & Lacicner, for the appellee.

Per Curiam :

The questions arising upon this record are substantially the same as in the case of *Williams*v. *German Mutual Fire Insurance Co. of North Chicago,*68 Ill. 387, and are decided in the same way.

An additional point is here made, that a former suit was brought upon this same premium note, before a justice of the peace, and that a verdict was returned by the jury in that case against the plaintiff, November 2,1872. The docket of the justice showed a motion for a new trial; that it was continued to November 8, and then to November 15, and the case dismissed at plaintiff’s costs. It did not appear by the docket that a new trial was granted, but the justice of the peace testified that it was granted November 8, and it is objected that it could not be thus shown.

But it is enough, as regards this case, that no judgment was rendered by the justice on the verdict, and that the case was dismissed at the plaintiff’s costs. That proceeding before the justice could be no bar to this suit.

*Judgment affirmed.*
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATE 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 report of Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007
(the "Report"), I, Mike Heather, Chief Financial 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:



|June 16, 2008 |  | /s/MIKE HEATHERMike Heather
Chief Financial Officer
|------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 31.2

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Joseph M. Paiva, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Orthovita, Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

Date: November 17, 2006



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/S/ JOSEPH M. PAIVA                    
|Joseph M. Paiva Chief Financial Officer
#### § 154.307 Joint facilities.

The Statements required by § 154.312 must show all costs (investment, operation, maintenance, depreciation, taxes) that have been allocated to the natural gas operations involved in the subject rate change and are associated with joint facilities. The methods used in making such allocations must be provided.
# C_2012006EN.01001403.xml

| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Hrbek v OHIM — Outdoor Group (ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT)

(Case T-434/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT - Earlier Community figurative mark ‘alpine’ - Misuse of power - Article 65(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

2012/C 6/25

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Václav Hrbek (Augustinova, Czech Republic) (represented by: C. Jäger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: The Outdoor Group Ltd (Northampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2010 (Case R 1441/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between The Outdoor Group Ltd and Mr Václav Hrbek.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Václav Hrbek to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Václav Hrbek to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

1

---
#### § 590.350 Appeal samples.

A condition appeal sample will consist of product taken from the original sample containers plus an equal number of containers selected at random. A condition appeal cannot be made unless all originally sampled containers are available.

[85 FR 68676, Oct. 29, 2020]
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

      In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gilman + Ciocia, Inc.
(the "Company") for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis
Conroy, Chief Accounting 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 results of operations
            of the Company.

By: /s/ Dennis Conroy
    --------------------------
Name: Dennis Conroy
Chief Accounting Officer

Date: January 20, 2004


                                       98
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-63699, No. 333-67535, No. 333-89551, No. 333-89505, No. 333-35996 and No. 333-125881) and Form S-3 (No. 333-156944, No. 333-100701,No. 333-60877 and No. 333-30497) of C&F Financial Corporation of our reports, dated March 3, 2010, relating to the audits of the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting of C&F FinancialCorporation and Subsidiary, included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of C&F Financial Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

/s/ Yount, Hyde & Barbour, P.C. 

Winchester, Virginia 

March 3, 2010
§ 91.6 Cleaning and disinfection of means of conveyance, containers, and facilities used during movement; approved disinfectants. ( a ) All export health certificates for livestock must be accompanied by a statement issued by an APHIS representative and/or accredited veterinarian that the means of conveyance or container in which the livestock will be transported from the premises of export has been cleaned and disinfected prior to loading the livestock with a disinfectant approved by the Administrator for purposes of this section or by a statement that the means of conveyance or container was not previously used to transport animals.
( b ) Livestock moved for export may be unloaded only into a facility which has been cleaned and disinfected prior to such unloading with a disinfectant approved by the Administrator for purposes of this section, and has subsequently been inspected by an APHIS representative or accredited veterinarian. A statement certifying to such action must be attached to the export health certificate by the APHIS representative or accredited veterinarian.
( c ) *Approved disinfectants.* The Administrator will approve a disinfectant for purposes of this section upon determining that the disinfectant is effective against pathogens that may be spread by the animals intended for export and, if the disinfectant is a chemical disinfectant, that it is registered or exempted for the specified use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Program Handbook provides access to a list of disinfectants approved by the Administrator for use as required by this section. Other disinfectants may also be approved by the Administrator in accordance with this paragraph. The Administrator will withdraw approval of a disinfectant, and remove it from the list of approved disinfectants, if the disinfectant no longer meets the conditions for approval in this section.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0432)
### §158. False or fraudulent statements prohibited; penalties

No stockholder, director, officer, employee, or agent of a China Trade Act corporation shall make, issue, or publish any statement, written or oral, or advertisement in any form, as to the value or as to the facts affecting the value of stocks, bonds, or other evidences of debt, or as to the financial condition or transactions, or facts affecting such condition or transactions, of such corporation if it has issued or is to issue stocks, bonds, or other evidences of debt, whenever he knows or has reason to believe that any material representation in such statement or advertisement is false. No stockholder, director, officer, employee, or agent of a China Trade Act corporation shall, if all the authorized capital stock thereof has not been paid in, make, issue, or publish any written statement or advertisement, in any form, stating the amount of the authorized capital stock without also stating as the amount actually paid in, a sum not greater than the amount paid in. Any person violating any provisions of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(Sept. 19, 1922, ch. 346, §18, 42 Stat. 855.)
# C_2015034EN.01002402.xml

| 2.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 34/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 34/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — Ferriere Nord v Commission

(Case T-90/10) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Fixing of prices and payment terms - Limiting or controlling output or sales - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Competence of the Commission - Rights of the defence - Finding of an infringement - Fines - Repeated infringements - Extenuating circumstances - Cooperation - Full jurisdiction))

(2015/C 034/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ferriere Nord SpA (Osoppo, Italy) (represented by: W. Viscardini and G. Donà, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by R. Sauer and B. Gencarelli, and subsequently by M. Sauer and R. Striani, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Moretto, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Primarily, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 [CS] (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption), as amended by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, and in the alternative application for partial annulment of that decision and application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Ferriere Nord SpA at EUR 3 4 21  440; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on Ferriere Nord SpA at EUR 3 4 21  440;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Ferriere Nord to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by the European Commission; orders the Commission to bear one-quarter of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ferriere Nord to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by the European Commission; orders the Commission to bear one-quarter of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

1

---
§ 154.102 Requirements for filing rate schedules and tariffs. ( a ) All rates schedules, tariffs, and service agreements may be filed either by dividing the rate schedule, tariff, or agreement into individual tariff sheets, or tariff sections, or as an entire document except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) Open access transportation tariffs must be filed either as individual sheets or sections. If filed as sections, each section must include only material of related subject matter and must be of reasonable length and must include at a minimum a section for each item listed in the table of contents under § 154.103 of this section and each topic listed under General Terms and Conditions of Service.
( c ) Individual negotiated rate agreements, non-conforming service agreements, or other agreements that are included in the tariff may be filed as entire documents.
( d ) The first section or sheet of the tariff must include: ( 1 ) The FERC Gas Tariff Volume Number and Name of the Natural Gas Company, for example FERC Gas Tariff Volume No. [ ] of [Name of Natural Gas Company]
( 2 ) The name, title, address, telephone number, e-mail address and facsimile number of a person to whom communications concerning the tariff should be sent.
[Order 714, 73 FR 57534, Oct. 3, 2008]
### SUBCHAPTER II—INCREMENTAL PRICING
**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 report of Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”), I, Samuel S. Lee, 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, 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 results of operations of the Company.

 
| May 16,   2011 |       | **/**s**/**SAMUEL S. LEE    |
|---------------------|------------|-----------------------------|
| ** **          | ** ** | **Samuel S. Lee**           |
| ** **          | ** ** | **Chief Executive Officer** |

 

----
# C_2006326EN.01007501.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/75

---

Action brought on 21 November 2006 — Total v OHIM — Peterson (Beverly Hills Formula TOTAL PROTECTION)

(Case T-326/06)

(2006/C 326/153)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Total SA (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: S. Aldred, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eric Peterson (London, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

| — | The decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal dated 5 September 2006 shall be annulled. |
| --- | --- |

—

The decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal dated 5 September 2006 shall be annulled.

| — | The Court either directs the Board or the Office to refuse Mr Peterson's Community trade mark application No 2 988 228, or at its discretion remit the opposition to the Board for reconsideration. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Court either directs the Board or the Office to refuse Mr Peterson's Community trade mark application No 2 988 228, or at its discretion remit the opposition to the Board for reconsideration.

| — | The applicant receives an award of costs in respect of the opposition, a reversal of the award of costs made in the Board's Decision, and an award of costs in respect of this Application. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant receives an award of costs in respect of the opposition, a reversal of the award of costs made in the Board's Decision, and an award of costs in respect of this Application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Eric Peterson

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Beverly Hills Formula TOTAL PROTECTION’ for goods in class 3 — application No 2 988 228

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: The national word mark ‘TOTAL’ for goods in classes 3, 10 and 21

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 in that the Board of Appeal found a lack of similarity between the two marks concerned and of Article 63(2) of the regulation as the Board of Appeal didn't notify any of the observations submitted by Eric Peterson to the applicant.

Pleas in law:

---