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

CERTIFICATION

I, Stephen B. Waters, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on

Form 10-KSB/A No. 1

 of National Property Investors 4;

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(s) 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 (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual 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 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 control over financial reporting.

Date:  

February 22, 2008

/s/Stephen B. Waters

Stephen B. Waters

Vice President of NPI Equity Investments, Inc., equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership
#### 1815.207 Handling proposals and information.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.65

                    DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATION OF DIRECTORS

          Each non-employee director of EMRISE Corporation is entitled to
receive $1,000 per month as compensation for his services. In addition, each
board member chairing a standing committee is entitled to receive $500 per month
as compensation for his services. EMRISE reimburses all directors for
out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with attendance at board and
committee meetings. EMRISE may periodically award options or warrants to its
directors under its option and incentive plans.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

FIRSTMERIT BANK, N.A., a nationally 

chartered bank, as successor in 

interest to MIDWEST BANK AND 

TRUST, an Illinois banking 

corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MERVYN DUKATT and CAROLYN 

DUKATT, 

 Defendants. 

 No. 11-cv-8903 

 Hon. Judge Aspen 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT

 

Plaintiff, FirstMerit Bank, N.A., by its undersigned attorneys, pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(d), hereby moves for the entry of Judgment, and 

in support states: 

1. FirstMerit filed its Complaint for breach of guarantee on December 15, 2011. 

2. FirstMerit moved for summary judgment on July 5, 2012. Dkt. # 18. 

3. FirstMerit requested judgment for the outstanding principle and interest in 

the amount of $742,099.00, plus interest at $205.29 per day after June 21, 2012, 

and costs and attorney fees. 

4. This Court granted FirstMerit’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety 

on September 26, 2012. Dkt. # 31. 

5. There have been 203 days between June 21, 2012 and January 10, 2013. 

Therefore, FirstMerit is entitled to $41,673.87 in additional interest payments. 
2 

FirstMerit is owed a total of $783,772.87, not counting its costs and attorney fees. 

6. First Merit moved for its costs and attorney fees pursuant to the guarantee 

on October 10, 2012. Dkt. # 32. 

7. Magistrate Judge Schenkier entered a report and recommendation on 

November 26, 2012, recommending that FirstMerit be awarded its costs and 

attorney fees in the amount of $11,522.79. Dkt. # 41. 

8. Defendants failed to file, and therefore waived, any objections to the Report 

and Recommendation. Lorentzen v. Anderson Pest Control, 64 F.3d 327, 330 (7th 

Cir. 1995). 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff FirstMerit, N.A. respectfully requests that this Court 

enter Judgment against Defendants in the amount of $795,295.66, such amount 

consisting of $783,772.87 in principal, interest and fees under the guarantee, and 

$11,522.79 in costs and attorney fees related to bringing this action, and for all 

other relief deemed just and fair. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC 

 /s/ Joseph W. Barber

 

W. Michael Seidel 

Joseph W. Barber 

Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC 

200 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100 

Chicago, IL 60604-2480 

Tel: (312) 372-4000 Fax: (312) 939-5617 

wms@h2law.com 

jwb@h2law.com 

Attorneys for FirstMerit Bank 
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney, upon oath, hereby certifies that (s)he served a 

copy of the foregoing Motion for Judgment upon the parties by causing a true and 

correct copy thereof to be electronically filed and delivered using the Court’s ECF 

system on the 10th day of January, 2013. 

 /s/ Joseph W. Barber
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Portanova, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered October 13, 1977, convicting him of criminal usury (nine counts), conspiracy in the third degree and promoting gambling in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. This appeal also brings up for review the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress certain evidence. Judgment reversed, guilty plea vacated, defendant’s motion to suppress granted, and the case is remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings. The sealing requirement of CPL 700.50 (subd 2) is to be strictly construed. Accordingly, the tape recordings of intercepted telephone communications involved herein, resulting from the issuance of an eavesdropping warrant dated June 7, 1976, should have been sealed immediately upon the expiration of that warrant. Since they were not, such tapes, as well as those gathered pursuant to the extension of the June 7 warrant (such extension having been predicated in part upon information gathered pursuant to the original warrant), and any and all other evidence garnered as a result of *1012such intercepted communications, must be suppressed (see *People v Washington,*46 NY2d 116; *People v Glasser,*58 AD2d 448; *People v Pecoraro,*58 AD2d 462, 471; CPL 700.65, subd 3). Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Martuscello and Mangano, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

I, William L. Bridgford, Chairman of
Bridgford Foods Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

| | 1. |  | the Quarterly Report
      on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended January 23,
      2009 (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 780(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.                                                                                                            
| |   

|Dated: March 9,
      2009 | /s/ William L. Bridgford             | 
|-------------------------- | ------------------------------------ | 
|                           | William L. Bridgford,
      Chairman | 
|                           | (Principal Executive Officer)       

23

---
Case: 1:12-cv-00215 Document #: 8 Filed: 01/13/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:31
Case: 1:12-cv-00215 Document #: 8 Filed: 01/13/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:32
#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Appellant-Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property for the New York City Housing Authority, Within the Area bounded by East 144th Street and Other Streets in the Borough of The Bronx, For a Federal-Aided Public Housing Project *638Known as Mott Haven Houses. Eva G. Reisner, Formerly Eva Garfinkel, Respondent-Appellant.

Final decree unanimously affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

    <ARTICLE>                         5

    <S>                               <C>
    <PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
    <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
    <PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
    <PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999
    <CASH>                                        12118
    <SECURITIES>                                      0
    <RECEIVABLES>                                     0
    <ALLOWANCES>                                      0
    <INVENTORY>                                       0
    <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  0
    <PP&E>                                            0
    <DEPRECIATION>                                    0
    <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                12118
    <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             0
    <BONDS>                                           0
    <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
    <PREFERRED>                                       0
    <COMMON>                                          0
    <OTHER-SE>                                  2372701
    <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  12118
    <SALES>                                           0
    <TOTAL-REVENUES>                              12118
    <CGS>                                             0
    <TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
    <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
    <LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
    <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
    <INCOME-PRETAX>                                   0
    <INCOME-TAX>                                      0
    <INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
    <DISCONTINUED>                                    0
    <EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
    <CHANGES>                                         0
    <NET-INCOME>                                  12118
    <EPS-BASIC>                                     0
    <EPS-DILUTED>                                     0


</TABLE>
1201.301 Policy. ( a ) ( 1 ) *Acquisition regulations* — ( i ) *Department-wide acquisition regulations.* The Department of Transportation's (DOT's) Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) is the individual having authority to issue or authorize the issuance of agency regulations that implement or supplement the FAR to include agency-unique policies, procedures, contract clauses, solicitation provisions, and forms that govern the contracting process. This authority is re-delegated from the Assistant Secretary for Administration to the SPE.
( ii ) *Operating Administration (OA) acquisition regulations.* OA supplemental acquisition regulations proposed to be inserted in the TAR as a TAR supplement regulation shall be reviewed and approved by the SPE. If approved by the SPE, the Office of the Senior Procurement Executive will prepare the rule for publication in the Federal Register in accordance with FAR 1.501. OA regulations may be more restrictive or require higher approval levels than those required by the TAR unless otherwise specified.
( 2 ) *Acquisition procedures.* The SPE issues or authorizes the issuance of internal agency guidance at any organizational level. DOT internal operating procedures are contained in the TAM. OA procedures necessary to implement or supplement the FAR, TAR, or TAM may be issued by the head of the contracting activity (HCA), who may delegate this authority to any organizational level deemed appropriate. OA procedures may be more restrictive or require higher approval levels than those permitted by the TAM unless otherwise specified.
( b ) The authority of the agency head under FAR 1.301(b) to establish procedures to ensure that agency acquisition regulations are published for comment in the Federal Register in conformance with the procedures in FAR subpart 1.5 is delegated to the Office of the General Counsel, Assistant General Counsel for Regulation.
2035.71 Broad agency announcements. ( a ) Criteria for selecting contractors may include such factors as: ( 1 ) Unique and innovative methods, approaches, or concepts demonstrated by the proposal.
( 2 ) Overall scientific, technical, or economic merits of the proposal.
( 3 ) The offeror's capabilities, related experience, facilities, techniques, or unique combinations of these which are integral factors for achieving the proposal objectives.
( 4 ) The qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the proposed principal investigator, team leader, or key personnel who are critical in achieving the proposal objectives.
( 5 ) Potential contribution of the effort to NRC's mission.
( 6 ) Overall standing among similar proposals available for evaluation and/or evaluation against the known state-of-the-art technology.
( b ) Once a proposal is received, communication between the agency's scientific or engineering personnel and the principal investigator is permitted for clarification purposes only and must be coordinated through the Division of Contracts and Property Management.
( c ) After evaluation of the proposals, the Designating Official shall submit a comprehensive evaluation report to the contracting officer which recommends the source(s) for contract award. The report must reflect the basis for the selection or nonselection of each proposal received.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<CIK>                                   0000318835
<MULTIPLIER>                            1
<CURRENCY>                              U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            Dec-31-1998
<CASH>                                  546110
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        0
<PP&E>                                  10204845
<DEPRECIATION>                          6691759
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          4114006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   0
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            4114006
<SALES>                                 2760387
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        2778744
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         1226910
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     1226910
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            1226910
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        

</TABLE>
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


  

  Exhibit
   10(i)

  

 CONSENT OF
   INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’

  

 To the Board of
   Directors of

 C.M. Life Insurance
   Company

  

 We consent to the
   inclusion in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 10 to Registration Statement
   No. 33-45122 on Form N-4 of our report dated February 14, 2000 on our audit
   of Panorama Plus Separate Account as of December 31, 1999 and for the year
   then ended, and of our report dated February 1, 2000, on our audit of the
   statutory financial statements of C.M. Life Insurance Company as of December
   31, 1999 for the year then ended, which includes explanatory paragraphs
   relating to the use of statutory accounting practices, which differ from
   generally accepted accounting principles. We also consent to the reference
   to our Firm under the caption “Experts” appearing in the Statement
   of Additional Information.

  

 DELOITTE
 & TOUCHE 
 LLP

  

 Hartford,
   Connecticut

 April 24,
   2000
19.000 Scope of part. ( a ) This part implements the acquisition-related sections of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631, *et seq.*), applicable sections of the Armed Services Procurement Act (10 U.S.C. 3063-3064 and 3203), 41 U.S.C. 3104, and Executive Order 12138, May 18, 1979. It covers— ( 1 ) The determination that a concern is eligible for participation in the programs identified in this part;
( 2 ) The respective roles of executive agencies and the Small Business Administration (SBA) in implementing the programs;
( 3 ) Setting acquisitions aside, in total or in part, for exclusive competitive participation by small business, 8(a) participants, HUBZone small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) concerns eligible under the SDVOSB Program, and economically disadvantaged women-owned small business (EDWOSB) concerns and women-owned small business (WOSB) concerns eligible under the WOSB Program;
( 4 ) The certificate of competency program;
( 5 ) The subcontracting assistance program;
( 6 ) The “8(a)” business development program (hereafter referred to as 8(a) program), under which agencies contract with the SBA for goods or services to be furnished under a subcontract by a small disadvantaged business concern;
( 7 ) The use of a price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns;
( 8 ) The use of veteran-owned small business concerns;
( 9 ) Sole source awards to HUBZone small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, and EDWOSB concerns and WOSB concerns eligible under the WOSB Program; and
( 10 ) The use of reserves.
( b ) ( 1 ) Unless otherwise specified in this part (see subparts 19.6 and 19.7)— ( i ) Contracting officers shall apply this part in the United States and its outlying areas; and
( ii ) Contracting officers may apply this part outside the United States and its outlying areas.
( 2 ) Offerors that participate in any procurement under this part are required to meet the definition of “small business concern” at 2.101 and the definition of “concern” at 19.001.
[48 FR 42240, Sept. 19, 1983] Editorial Note
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations affecting section 19.000, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at www.govinfo.gov.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Chicago Police Officer Lawson, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−01273

Honorable John W. Darrah

Universal Studios LLC

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, May 15, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable John W. Darrah: Status hearing held. Plaintiff

having failed to appear, this case is dismissed for want of prosecution. Civil case

terminated. Mailed notice. (maf)

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-01273 Document #: 9 Filed: 05/10/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:13
#### Juan Jimenez et al., Respondents, v Nichola Haros et al., Appellants.

[834 NYS2d 169]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered January 12, 2006, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, and for plaintiffs’ noncompliance with a 90-day notice, and order, same court (Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, J.), entered on or about October 10, 2006, which denied, as untimely, defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss for noncompliance with their 90-day notice, served after plaintiffs had filed a note of issue and certificate of readiness in May 2001, was properly denied *(see*CPLR 3216 [d]; *Chase v Scavuzzo,*87 NY2d 228 [1995]). Contrary to defendants’ contention, plaintiffs’ note of issue had not been vacated by the order entered August 20, 2001. Even if it had been, the record demonstrates that plaintiffs did not abandon the action. In response to the 90-day notice, they offered a justifiable excuse for the purported delay in prosecuting the action and demonstrated a meritorious cause of action *(see*CPLR 3216; *Grant v City of New York,*17 AD3d 215 [2005]). According to the record, all depositions and other discovery requests had been satisfied prior to the imposition of a nearly three-year stay of the proceedings due to defendants’ insurer’s liquidity issues and the placement of its assets with a trustee. Once the stay was lifted, and new counsel was appointed for defendants, defendants sought additional discovery while, nearly simultaneously, serving a 90-day notice. Plaintiffs complied with the additional discovery requests within a reasonable time under difficult circumstances not entirely of their making.

Defendants’ summary judgment motion was properly denied as untimely, having been made more than 120 days after the filing of the note of issue, and the record does not indicate good cause for the delay *(see*CPLR 3212 [a]). Although defendants attribute the delay to their need of an independent medical exam, there is no indication that the exam had any bearing on the liability issues raised in the summary judgment motion. A grant of summary judgment would, in any case, have been inap*438propriate since there are triable issues as to liability, and defendant presented no competent evidence in support of its contention that defendant Jinete Realty is an improper party. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.