alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906**In connection with the quarterly report of Orchids Paper Products Company (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Keith R. Schroeder, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 ofTitle 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.         By:                                                        /s/ Keith R. Schroeder    Keith R. Schroeder  August 4, 2006  Chief Financial Officer
2006-0591.

#### State v. Rosado.

Cuyahoga App. No. 83694, 2005-Ohio-6626. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
98-846.

#### Kagy v. Toledo Lucas Cty. Port Auth.

Fulton App. No. 97-FU-9. Reported at 82 Ohio St.3d 1477, 696 N.E.2d 604. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Douglas and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Resnick, J., not participating.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Marion Stevenson, Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated June 13, 1966, modified, on the law, to the extent of directing the holding of a hearing on the issue whether there was such improper publicizing of defendant’s arrest and interrogation as to render a fair trial impossible and as to induce his guilty plea. Proceeding remitted to the court below for the purpose of holding such hearing and making a determination *de novo.*As so modified, order affirmed. *(People*v. *Sepos,*16 N Y 2d 662; see *People*v. *Stevenson,*23 A D 2d 856.) Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 22, 1965, denying an application described as for *coram nobis*relief, dismissed. That order was vacated by an order of said court dated December 15, 1965; furthermore, the *coram nobis*proceeding was determined by the above-mentioned order of June 13, 1966. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
§ 1970.155 Supplementing EISs. ( a ) A supplement to a draft or final EIS will be announced, prepared, and circulated in the same manner (exclusive of meetings held during the scoping process) as a draft and final EIS (see 7 CFR 1970.154). Supplements to a draft or final EIS will be prepared if: ( 1 ) There are substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; or
( 2 ) Significant new circumstances or information pertaining to the proposal arise which are relevant to environmental concerns and the proposal or its impacts.
( b ) The Agency will publish an NOI to prepare a supplement to a draft or final EIS.
( c ) The Agency, at its discretion, may issue an information supplement to a final EIS where the Agency determines that the purposes of NEPA are furthered by doing so even though such supplement is not required by 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1). The Agency and the applicant must concurrently have separate notices of availability published. The notice requirements must be the same as for a final EIS and the information supplement must be circulated in the same manner as a final EIS. The Agency will take no final action on any proposed modification discussed in the information supplement until 30 days after the Agency's notice of availability or the applicant's notice is published, whichever occurs later.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Farmers & Merchants 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrant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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ Barbara J. BritenrikerBarbara J. Britenriker, Chief Financial Officer 85
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Research Frontiers Incorporated:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (No. 33-53030, 33-86910, 333-08623, 333-34163, 333-80575,
333-63374 and 333-106754) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-40369, 333-115052
and 333-65219) on Form S-3 of Research Frontiers Incorporated and
subsidiary of our report dated March 3, 2006, with respect to
the consolidated balance sheet of Research Frontiers Incorporated
and subsidiary as of December 31, 2005, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and
cash flows for the year then ended, and all related financial
statement schedule, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005
annual report on Form 10-K of Research Frontiers Incorporated
and subsidiary.


                              /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
                                  BDO Seidman, LLP

  Melville, New York
  March 29, 2006
#### Eastern Air Lines, Inc., et al., Petitioners, v State Human Rights Appeal Board et al., Respondents.

Order of respondents State Human Rights Appeal Board dated September 14, 1979 confirmed and the cross motion of respondent State Division of Human Rights denied as unnecessary. Respondent State division shall recover of petitioner Eastern Air Lines $75 costs and disbursements of this proceeding. No opinion. Concur—Fein, J. P., Sullivan, Lupiano, Silverman and Bloom, JJ.
#### County of Niagara, Niagara County Sewer District No. 1, Appellant, v H. J. Schneider Construction, Inc., Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. (See County Law, §§ 262, 263.) (Appeal from order of Niagara Supreme Court—arbitration.) Present—Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
#### Morrow’s Administrator vs. Mason *et al.*

©bet. Case 128,

Error to the Montgomery Circuit; Robbin , Judge*.

*Appeal bond. Replevin bond. Satisfaction.*Security,

Sfecurity *in*appeal bond, conditioned to “pay” &c. does not discharge bis obligation,wben upon affirmance of judg ment, he rep-levies tbeoriginal debt, &c., he must actually “pay.”

May 12.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered ihe Opinion of 'he *(*curt.

On the 7th of October, 1823, John Mason, as principal, and James Mason, as his surety, entered into an appeal bond for prosecuting an appeal to this court from a judgment which had been rendered in favor of Thomas Morrow against the said John Mason.

The condition of the bond was that', in *the event*•of an affirmance by this court, John Mason should *“pay*and satisfy” the judgment and all costs and damages.

The judgment was affirmed by this court, in December, 1823, with costs and damages. Afterwards, John Mason replevied executions, which had been issued for the amount of the original judgment, and for the damages adjudged by this court.

In 1831, this suit (debt) was brought by the personal representatives of Thomas Morrow for *the*purpose of enforcing the appeal bond. On the trial, the circuit court instructed the jury, in substance, that the appeal bond had been satisfied and discharged by the replevin bonds ; and a verdict and judgment were consequently rendered in bar of the aerfion.

(It does not appear that the replevin bonds had 'ever been satisfied.)

The instruction thus given cannot be sustained. Although the original judgment, and that for damages, may have been merged in the replevin bonds, and, in that sense, were satisfied, nevertheless, *the*amount of the judgments had not, according to the condition of the appeal bond, been *paid.*

The replevin bonds operated only as a collateral security. They did not extinguish or discharge the obligation of the appeal bond. Morrow had a right to proceed on either of those concurrent and independent securities ; but nothing short of the collection of the whole amount to which each of them en*371¿itied him, by a proceeding on one of them, would ¿ave barred his right to proceed on the other..- The object of the appeal bond was to secure the of tiie debt and damages. The object of the replevin bonds was the same and no more ; they could not be deemed a *payment*of the debt or of the damages, any more than judgments actually obtained upon the judgments lor debt and damages could have been considered as a pay ment. i.i neither cac-e, would-any preexisting and. separate collateral security have been affected.

*James*Trimble, for plaintiff.'

John Mason was to “pay” the amount of the original judgment, and of that for damages He did not do so ; he only gave a new and additional' security, which did not operate as an extinguishment or satisfaction of the appeal bond.

Wherefore, the judgment of the circuit court must be reversed, and the cause remanded for a(jew trial.
§ 201.33 Seed in bulk or large quantities; seed for cleaning or processing. ( a ) In the case of seed in bulk, the information required under sections 201(a), (b), and (i) of the Act shall appear in the invoice or other records accompanying and pertaining to such seed. If the seed is in containers and in quantities of 20,000 pounds or more, regardless of the number of lots included, the information required on each container under sections 201 (a), (b), and (i) of the Act need not be shown on each container; *Provided,* That: ( 1 ) The omission from each container of a label with the required information is with the knowledge and consent of the consignee prior to the transportation or delivery for transportation of such seed in interstate commerce;
( 2 ) each container has stenciled upon it or bears a label containing a lot designation; and
( 3 ) the invoice or other records accompanying and pertaining to such seed bear the various statements required for the respective seeds.
( b ) Seed consigned to a seed cleaning or processing establishment, for cleaning or processing for seeding purposes, need not be labeled to show the information required on each container under sections 201 (a), (b), and (i) of the Act if it is in bulk, or in containers and in quantities of 20,000 pounds or more regardless of the number of lots involved, and the invoice or other records accompanying and pertaining to such seed show that it is “Seed for processing,” or, if the seed is in containers and in quantities less than 20,000 pounds and each container bears a label with the words “Seed for processing.” If any such seed is later to be labeled as to origin and/or variety, the origin and/or variety as the case may be, shall be shown on the invoice if the seed is in bulk, otherwise, on a label, at the time of transportation to such establishment, except that if it is covered by a declaration of origin and/or variety it will be sufficient if the lot designation appearing in the declaration is placed on the invoice if the seed is in bulk, or on a label if the seed is in containers, regardless of the quantity.
[24 FR 3953, May 15, 1959, as amended at 85 FR 40580, July 7, 2020]
EXHIBIT

11-1   THE NAVIGATORS

GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES   COMPUTATION OF PER

SHARE EARNINGS  Earnings Per Share

of Common Stock and Common Stock Equivalents  ($ in thousands, except per share

data)   Year Ended

  December 31,2003

  

  2002

  

  2001Net income

  applicable to common stock

  

  $

  7,685

  

  $

  16,397

  

  $

  3,668Average number

  of common shares outstanding

  

  9,446

  

  8,463

  

  8,419Net income per

  share  Basic

  

  $

  0.81

  

  $

  1.94

  

  $

  0.44Average number

  of common shares outstanding

  

  9,446

  

  8,463

  

  8,419Add:  Assumed exercise of stock options and

  grants

  

  139

  

  213

  

  128Common and

  common equivalent shares outstanding

  

  9,585

  

  8,676

  

  8,547Net income per

  share  Diluted

  

  $

  0.80

  

  $

  1.89

  

  $

  0.43
Exhibit 99.1



                   Report of Ernst & Young LLP


We have audited the balance sheets of IMC-Agrico Company (a
Partnership) as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, and June 30, 1995
and the related statements of earnings, changes in partners'
capital and cash flows for the six-month periods ended December
31, 1995 and 1994, and the year ended June 30, 1995 (not
presented separately herein).  These financial statements are the
responsibility of IMC-Agrico Company's management.  Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether
the financial statements are free of material misstatement.  An
audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An
audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating
the overall financial statement presentation.  We believe that
our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position
of IMC-Agrico Company as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, and June
30, 1995, and the results of its operations and its cash flows
for the six-month periods ended December 31, 1995 and 1994 and
the year ended June 30, 1995 in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles.




                                         /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                         --------------------
                                         ERNST & YOUNG LLP




Chicago, Illinois
January 15, 1996
#### BARNUM et al., Respondents, v. BIRGE et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by Curtis A. Barnum and others against Delos L. Birge and another. C. L. Barber, for appellants. C. B. Pierce, for respondents.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
**Exhibit 31(a)****CERTIFICATIONS****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, Michael J. Quillen, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q (this “Report”) of Alpha NR Holding, Inc.(the “Registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this Report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisReport; 4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation;andc. Disclosed in this Report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting;5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theRegistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1014

ROBINSON A. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY RESTAURANTS, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. 

(1:15-cv-03700-ELH)

Submitted: June 16, 2016 Decided: June 22, 2016

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robinson A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Butz, BONNER, 

KIERNAN, TREBACH & CROCIATA, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Justin 

McArthur Cuniff, Christy Ann Fisher, BONNER, KIERNAN, TREBACH &

CROCIATA, LLP, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robinson A. Williams appeals the district court’s order sua 

sponte dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2012) conspiracy action. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Williams v. Cheesecake Factory Rest., Inc., No. 1:15-cv03700-ELH (D. Md. filed Dec. 8, 2015; entered Dec. 9, 2015). We 

also deny as moot Williams’ motion to stay pending appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT      31.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CEO PURSUANT TO**

**SECURITIES      EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                                  |                                                 |                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  | **IR                BIOSCIENCES HOLDINGS, INC.**     |
|                             |                                            |                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| Date: May                8, 2007 | By:                                        | /s/                Michael                K.                Wilhelm                          |
|                                  | Michael                K. Wilhelm                    |
|                                  | President                and Chief Executive Officer |

----
§ 205.240 Pasture practice standard. The producer of an organic livestock operation must, for all ruminant livestock on the operation, demonstrate through auditable records in the organic system plan, a functioning management plan for pasture. ( a ) Pasture must be managed as a crop in full compliance with §§ 205.202, 205.203(d) and (e), 205.204, and 205.206(b) through (f). Land used for the production of annual crops for ruminant grazing must be managed in full compliance with §§ 205.202 through 205.206. Irrigation shall be used, as needed, to promote pasture growth when the operation has irrigation available for use on pasture.
( b ) Producers must provide pasture in compliance with § 205.239(a)(2) and manage pasture to comply with the requirements of: § 205.237(c)(2), to annually provide a minimum of 30 percent of a ruminant's dry matter intake (DMI), on average, over the course of the grazing season(s); § 205.238(a)(3), to minimize the occurrence and spread of diseases and parasites; and § 205.239(e) to refrain from putting soil or water quality at risk.
( c ) A pasture plan must be included in the producer's organic system plan, and be updated annually in accordance with § 205.406(a). The producer may resubmit the previous year's pasture plan when no change has occurred in the plan. The pasture plan may consist of a pasture/rangeland plan developed in cooperation with a Federal, State, or local conservation office: *Provided,* that, the submitted plan addresses all of the requirements of § 205.240(c)(1) through (8). When a change to an approved pasture plan is contemplated, which may affect the operation's compliance with the Act or the regulations in this part, the producer shall seek the certifying agent's agreement on the change prior to implementation. The pasture plan shall include a description of the: ( 1 ) Types of pasture provided to ensure that the feed requirements of § 205.237 are being met.
( 2 ) Cultural and management practices to be used to ensure pasture of a sufficient quality and quantity is available to graze throughout the grazing season and to provide all ruminants under the organic system plan, except exempted classes identified in § 205.239(c)(1) through (3), with an average of not less than 30 percent of their dry matter intake from grazing throughout the grazing season.
( 3 ) Grazing season for the livestock operation's regional location.
( 4 ) Location and size of pastures, including maps giving each pasture its own identification.
( 5 ) The types of grazing methods to be used in the pasture system.
( 6 ) Location and types of fences, except for temporary fences, and the location and source of shade and the location and source of water.
( 7 ) Soil fertility and seeding systems.
( 8 ) Erosion control and protection of natural wetlands and riparian areas practices.
[75 FR 7194, Feb. 17, 2010]