alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Michael C. Coffman, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Panhandle Oil and Gas Inc.(the Company);  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have: a). Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the Company, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b).  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, orcaused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c).  Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d).  Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s fourthfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’sauditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors: a).  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and  b).  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting.          /s/ Michael C. Coffman   Michael C. Coffman   Chief Executive Officer   Date: December 11, 2007
(59)
#### SHUMAKER v. HAMILTON

No. 363P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 635

Motion by the Attorney General to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 2 October 1997. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 October 1997.
Exhibit 12.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
  The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for thecompany and have:
  procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
  this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
  occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and
  The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of thecompany’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
  over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     Lawrence Patrick Adrian DaviesChief executive
#### § 921.824 Special performance standards—mountaintop removal.

Part 824 of this chapter, *Special Permanent Program Performance Standards—Mountaintop Removal,* shall apply to any person who conducts surface coal mining operations constituting mountaintop removal mining.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 00232

- CV

In re N.T.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM HAYS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

Relator ’ s Mot i on for Temporary Relief is also denied.

_____________ _____________________________

Melissa Goodwin , Justice

Before Justices Go odwin, Triana, and Kelly

Filed: June 9 , 2021
#### Marie C. Roveda et al., Appellants, v. Hyman Weiss, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for injuries to person and property, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated July 10, 1957, entered upon a jury verdict in their favor. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Plaintiffs contend that the verdict was inadequate; that remarks by the court precluded a fair trial; and that the court committed reversible error in rejecting and admitting certain evidence. The cause of action arose when defendant’s automobile struck the rear of plaintiffs’ automobile. Liability for the accident was conceded by defendant. Plaintiff Marie Roveda claimed disk injuries in the back and neck. Several witnesses testified as medical experts. Their testimony was in conflict as to the extent and severity of the injuries. The jury’s verdict reflected a belief that there were no *“*disk ” injuries or that, if there were such .injuries, they *746did not stem from the accident. Where there is such a conflict of evidence, the credibility of witnesses and the truthfulness and accuracy of their testimony are issues for the jury *(Kelly*v. *Watson Elevator Go.,*309 N. Y. 49; *Barnet*v. *Cannizzaro,*3 A D 2d 745), which should not be resolved by the court. With respect to the alleged prejudicial remarks by the court, such remarks constituted efforts merely to clarify statements made by the several witnesses and to prevent the jury from becoming confused by such statements. However, there are errors of law serious enough to necessitate a reversal. Dr. Sherman, one of plaintiffs’ medical experts, stated on cross-examination that he had never heard of a Dr. Armstrong, the author of a certain medical book, nor heard of the book itself. Nevertheless, over objection, the court permitted counsel to elicit the witness’ opinion as to the correctness or incorrectness of a statement which counsel read from the book. The witness disagreed with the statement, which conflicted with his testimony. Similar rulings were made on the cross-examination of another of plaintiffs’ medical experts, Dr. Braaf, and on the cross-examination of one of defendant’s medical experts. The court’s rulings in permitting the use of textbooks, which had not been accepted as authoritative by the witness in each instance, were erroneous. Such rulings permitted violation of the hearsay evidence rule *(People*v. *Fel&man,*229 N. Y. 153, 167-168; *Hastings*v. *Chrysler Corp.,*273 App. Div. 292). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
§ 1700.7 Administrative appeals. ( a ) A requester may appeal any adverse determination to a person designated by the Director of National Intelligence (the “Designee”). The Designee will act on behalf of the Director of National Intelligence on all appeals under this section.
( b ) An appeal ordinarily will not be adjudicated if the request becomes subject to litigation.
( c ) The appeal must be transmitted if sent by email, or postmarked if sent by U.S. mail, within 90 days after the date of the adverse determination letter. The appeal shall clearly identify the ODNI determination that is being appealed, including the assigned ODNI case request number. For the most expeditious handling, the subject line of the electronic transmission, or appeal letter and envelope, should be marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.”
( d ) On receipt of any appeal involving classified information, the Designee must take appropriate action to ensure compliance with applicable classification rules.
( e ) ODNI's decision on an appeal shall be in writing. A decision upholding ODNI's original determination will contain a statement that identifies the reasons for affirmance, including any FOIA exemptions applied. The decision will provide the requester with notification of the statutory right to file a lawsuit and will inform the requester of the mediation services offered by OGIS as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. If ODNI's decision is remanded or modified on appeal, the requester will be notified of that determination in writing. ODNI will thereafter further process the request in accordance with that appeal determination.
#### § 1807.111 Notice.

The NACIC shall make available to employees, applicants, participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons, such information regarding the provisions of this part and its applicability to the programs or activities conducted by the NACIC, and make that information available to them in such manner as the Director finds necessary to apprise those persons of the protections against discrimination assured them by section 504 and the regulations in this part.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Hunter, Appellant.

Motion by respondent for an extension of time within which to file brief and argue appeal. Motion granted and the time to serve and file brief is extended to October 10, 1960, and the appeal to be ready for argument at the Term of this court commencing October 31, 1960.
#### § 553.35 Media.

All officials and staff of the media are subject to the Visitors Rules enumerated in § 553.33 and shall comply with the Department of the Army's media policy.
#### White Star Distributors, Inc., Appellant, v Roy Kennedy, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Appellant commenced this action to recover possession of a 1969 Winnebago motor home alleging that respondent purchased it subject to appellant’s security interest in the vehicle. In January, 1974 appellant sold the Winnebago to William Scheuerle who made a cash down payment and signed *a-*retail installment contract which provided for monthly payments of the balance. According to the terms of the contract appellant retained a security interest in the Winnebago and was authorized to file a financing statement. Sometime thereafter appellant assigned the contract to Manufacturers & Traders Trust Company without, however, filing a financing statement. In August Scheuerle transferred title to the vehicle to one Jan Jerge. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Company then filed a financing statement. The Winnebago was later sold by Jerge to John Hinchey and then, finally, by Hinchey to the respondent. When Scheuerle defaulted in his monthly payments on the retail installment contract to the Manufacturers & Traders Trust Company, the retail installment contract was reassigned to appellant. A valid financing statement properly filed perfects a security interest in a motor vehicle (Uniform Commercial Code, § 9-302, subd [1], par [d]). Until that time a "buyer not in ordinary course of business to the extent he gives value and receives delivery of the collateral without knowledge of the security interest” takes free of the security interest (Uniform Commercial Code, § 9-301, subd [1], par [c]). The code requires that a financing statement include the name and address of the debtor (Uniform Commercial Code § 9-402, subd [1]). As used in this context the term "debtor” is defined to include both the owner of the collateral and the obligor on the financing agreement when the owner and the obligor are not the same person (Uniform Commercial Code, § 9-105, subd [1], par [d]; 4 Anderson Uniform Commercial Code [2d ed], § 9-402.20). Even though Manufacturers & Traders Company was aware that title to the Winnebago had been transferred to Jerge, it nonetheless, listed only Scheuerle on the financing statement. The financing statement thus failed properly to identify the debtor and was, therefore, insufficient to perfect the security interest. Since respondent purchased the Winnebago out of the ordinary course of business and without knowledge of the unperfected security interest, his ownership was free of the security interest. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Supreme Court-replevin.) Present —Marsh, P. J., Cardamone, Dillon, Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                   CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.
1350):

         I, Harold R. Beattie, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of ElkCorp, certify
to my knowledge and belief pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C.ss. 1350) that:

         (1)      The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
                  September 30, 2003, which this statement accompanies, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
                  for the period ended September 30, 2003 fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of ElkCorp.

Dated:  November 4, 2003
                                                   By /s/ Harold R. Beattie, Jr.
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Harold R. Beattie, Jr.
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
#### § 225.2 Applicability.

This part applies to veterans who are Purple Heart recipients, veterans who are former prisoners of war, veterans who have a Department of Veterans Affairs-documented service-connected disability rating between 0-90 percent, and individuals approved and designated as the caregiver or family caregiver of an eligible veteran under a formalized Department of Veterans Affairs caregiver program (as of January 1, 2020, authorized caregivers are the primary family caregiver of an eligible veteran under the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers).
### subpart vi—marketing quotas—peanuts
EXHIBIT 32.2
                Certification of the Principal Financial Officer
                       pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with this quarterly report of Espey Mfg. & Electronics  Corp. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the  date  hereof,  I,  David  O'Neil,
Treasurer and Principal 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 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; and

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

Date: May 14, 2008


                                                   /s/ David O'Neil
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                   David O'Neil, Treasurer and
                                                   Principal Financial Officer



                                       16
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,769,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,681,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   981,000
<INVENTORY>                                 12,216,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            33,483,000
<PP&E>                                      28,193,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,474,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              72,206,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,050,000
<BONDS>                                     13,842,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       153,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,804,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                72,206,000
<SALES>                                     21,321,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,321,000
<CGS>                                       11,256,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,256,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,143,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             329,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,603,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,369,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,234,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,234,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29


</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DAVID MORDEKHAY and CONTINENTAL CONNECTIONS USA, LLC, Appellants,

v.

ORI DARMON, derivatively as a member and on behalf of D.O.D. INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, S.B. MIAMI DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and BERAZ INVESTMENT LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company derivatively as

members and on behalf of D.O.D. HOLDINGS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Appellees.

No. 4D 2 0 2 2

- 3153

[ March 14, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Sandra Perlman, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE16

- 014391.

Nancy W. Gregoire Stamper of Birnbaum, Lippman & Gregoire, PLLC

, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Lyle E. Shapiro and Beatriz M. Carta of Herskowitz Shapiro, PLLC, Miami, for appellees.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY
, F ORST and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 705.9 Availability of motion pictures to external audiences. ( a ) *Public access.* Navy and Marine Corps general motion pictures and motion picture projects not previously cleared for public exhibition will require clearance by the Chief of Information or the Marine Corps Director of Information, as appropriate, prior to public viewing. Concurrent review of legal rights and instruments associated with the production will be carried out by Patent Counsel, Naval Air Systems Command (AIR-OOP). Cleared motion pictures may also be made available for free loan as determined by the individual services. In addition, cleared motion pictures may be provided for rent or sale through the National Audio-Visual Center, National Archives and Records Service (GSA), Washington, DC 20409.
( b ) *Foreign military training.* Motion pictures from the Navy inventory may be made available for foreign military training programs on approval by the Chief of Naval Operations. Classified motion pictures selected for such use will also require a security review by the Chief of Naval Operations.
Exhibit No. 6
Form 10KSB
SPM Group, Inc.

                       ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                              to the
                     ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                      of   S P M GROUP, INC.

      Pursuant to the provisions of the Colorado Corporation Code,
the  undersigned  corporation adopts  the  following  Articles  of
Amendments to its Articles of Incorporation:

     FIRST:    The name of the corporation is S P M Group, Inc.

       SECOND:    The  following  amendment  to  the  Articles  of
Incorporation  was  adopted on 27 July 1988 as prescribed  by  the
Colorado  Corporation  Code, by a vote of  the  shareholders.  The
number  of  shares  voted  for the amendment  was  sufficient  for
approval.

      Paragraph 1 of Article IV shall be deleted and the following
inserted in place thereof:

     4.1.   The   aggregate  number       of  shares   which   the
     corporation  has  authority to issue is one  hundred  million
     (100,000,000) common shares no par value.

      A  new  Article  XVI  shall  be added  to  the  articles  of
incorporation of this Corporation as follows:

     ARTICLE XVI LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

          The  liability of the directors of this Corporation  for
     monetary  damages shall be eliminated to the  fullest  extent
     permissible under Colorado law.

       THIRD:     There  is  no  exchange,  reclassification,   or
cancellation of issued shares provided for in the amendment.

      FOURTH:   There is no change in the amount of stated capital
by such amendment.

                                   S P M GROUP, INC.

                                   /s/ Mark S. Ledom, President

                              and  /s/   Robert  Wiegand   II,
Secretary

                               E-14
<PAGE>