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



I, Christine Thomas, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly presents 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 quarterly report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officers, if any, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I (we) have:



a.

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b.

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (Evaluation Date); and

c.

presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrants other certifying officers, if any, and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a.

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b.

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and



6.

The registrants other certifying officers, if any, and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were any significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.







/s/ Christine Thomas

Date: January 18, 2008

Christine Thomas, Secretary/Director

Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Sam Santana and Frank Gomez, Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 24, 1978, suppressing physical evidence and a subsequent inculpatory statement reversed, on the law, motion to suppress denied in all respects and matter remanded for further proceedings. The People appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress physical evidence consisting of two .45 caliber guns and ammunition and a subsequent inculpatory statement by one of the defendants following the challenged seizure. Although accepting the factual statements of the single police officer who testified, the court apparently granted the motion to suppress on the view that the officers were unjustified in drawing their guns. The subsequent custodial statement was suppressed as the "fruit” of the allegedly unlawful search and arrest. We disagree, vacate the order granting the motion to suppress the weapons and the statement, and deny the motion to suppress. In our view, the action of the police officers was entirely reasonable under the circumstances. The defendants were seen on the late evening of December 13, 1977 looking up and down the street, in close proximity to a third man using a public phone. Observing the officers, the two defendants hurriedly walked away from the area, one of them carrying a canvas bag from which was seen to protrude an object that appeared to be the barrel of a sawed-off shotgun. Eventually the defendants ran down an unlit ramp leading off the street and down to the basement level of an apartment building. The officers followed with weapons drawn. The defendant Gomez was observed kneeling over the canvas bag. The officers identified themselves whereupon the defendant Santana reached toward his waistband. He was ordered to raise his hands which he did. The officers found within the bag a .45 caliber semiautomatic carbine and a fully loaded clip. Under Santana’s waistband was found a .45 caliber pistol loaded with ammunition. Both defendants were in possession of additional ammunition. Under the circumstances described, the police officers were entirely justified in drawing their guns as they descended the ramp. Their behavior was reasonable and appropriate throughout the incident. (See *People v De Bour,*
      *55040 NY2d 210; *People v McLaurin,*43 NY2d 902.) Concur—Birns, J. P., Sandler, Ross, Markewich and Yesawich, JJ.
#### § 29.1017 Finish.

The reflectance factor in color perception. Finish indicates the sheen or shine of the surface of a tobacco leaf.

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]
#### § 29.1169 Scrap (S Group).

A byproduct of stemmed and unstemmed tobacco. Scrap accumulates from handling tobacco in farm buildings, warehouses, packing and conditioning plants, and stemmeries.

*Grade, Grade Name and Specifications*

S—Scrap. Loose, whole, or broken unstemmed leaves; or the web portion of tobacco leaves reduced to scrap by any process.

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977, as amended at 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984]
#### In the Matter of Kenneth A. Patterson, Respondent, v Harold J. Smith, as the Superintendent of the Attica Correctional Facility, et al., Appellants.

— Judgment affirmed, without costs. All concur, except Simons and Moule, JJ., who dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and dismiss the petition, in the following memorandum.

Simons and Moule, JJ.

(dissenting). Petitioner commenced an article 78 proceeding to obtain an order expunging from his permanent prison file a memorandum which states that he was involved in an alleged escape plan while an inmate at the Ossining Correctional Facility. Petitioner asserts that the memorandum caused his reassignment from a job in the hospital at the Clinton Correctional Facility to a job in a more secure area and that he has never had an opportunity to challenge the allegation contained in the memorandum. The court ordered the Department of Correctional Services to commence disciplinary proceedings concerning the alleged escape plan within 90 days or, failing to do so, not to consider the memorandum upon applications by petitioner for transfer, job assignments, temporary release or parole. Prisoners may not be penalized for prison misconduct without *1052notice and a hearing on the charges *(Wolff v McDonnell,*418 US 539; *Matter of Amato v Ward,*41 NY2d 469). For example, a prisoner may not be denied good behavior allowances on the basis of misconduct without being afforded adequate due process protections *(Matter of Amato v Ward, supra),*and a prisoner may not be placed in segregated confinement without a hearing *(Wilkinson v Skinner,*34 NY2d 53). However, lawful incarceration results in a diminution of many of the rights and privileges of ordinary citizens *(Wolff v McDonnell, supra; Price v Johnston,*334 US 266; *Cooper v Lombard,*64 AD2d 130). Thus, prisoners have no right to particular security classifications or program or job assignments (see *Montanye v Haymes,*427 US 236). In addition, correction officials have wide discretion in matters of prison administration, institutional security and transfer of prisoners (see, e.g., *Meachum v Fano,*427 US 215, 228-229; *Wilkinson v Skinner, supra).*Petitioner’s transfer from a job in the prison hospital to one in a more secure area of the prison is not a sufficient penalty to entitle him to a hearing *(Matter of Duval v Smith,*50 AD2d 1066). Nor is the presence of the memorandum in petitioner’s file sufficient justification for the relief which the court ordered. Its mere presence does not result in the deprivation of a protected right sufficient to invoke due process *(Martinez v Oswald,*425 F Supp 112; *Matter of Duval v Smith, supra).*(Appeal from judgment of Wyoming Supreme Court—art 78.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Callahan, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Section 906 Certification**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.Section 1350), the undersigned officer of Centennial Bank Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: August 11, 2006 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1980

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1980.500 OMB control number.

The reporting and recordkeeping requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and have been assigned OMB control number 0575-0029. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to vary from 5 minutes to 58 hours per response, with an average of 4 hours per response including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Department of Agriculture, Clearance Officer, OIRM, Room 404-W, Washington, DC 20250; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (OMB# 0575-XXXX), Washington, DC 20503.

[55 FR 19245, May 8, 1990]
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LUTHER ARTHUR HORN, III, 

Petitioner, 

v. Case No. 3:20cv5101-LC-HTC 

MARK S INCH, 

Respondent. 

 / 

ORDER 

 This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation dated September 15, 2020 (ECF No. 14). The parties have been 

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an 

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 

636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of the timely filed objection and its 

supplement. 

 Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections 

thereto, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

 Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order. 

Case 3:20-cv-05101-LC-HTC Document 17 Filed 10/16/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3:17cv951-LC-HTC

2. The motion to dismiss (ECF Doc. 11) is GRANTED, and the petition 

for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF Doc. 1) is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

4. The Clerk is directed to close the file. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of October, 2020. 

LACEY A. COLLIER 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

s/L.A. Collier 

Case 3:20-cv-05101-LC-HTC Document 17 Filed 10/16/20 Page 2 of 2
Amendment #5 to the Rights Agreement


 Exhibit 4.1 
  

AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT 
  
 This AMENDMENT NO. 5 made as of the 14th day of March, 2005, between Boston Life Sciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and
Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company, a Delaware corporation (“Continental”), as Rights Agent under that certain Rights Agreement between the Company and Continental, dated as of September 11, 2001, as amended by Amendment No. 1
thereto dated as of November 13, 2001, Amendment No. 2 thereto dated as of November 22, 2002, Amendment No. 3 thereto dated as of March 12, 2003 and Amendment No. 4 thereto dated as of December 23, 2003 (the “Rights Agreement’).

  
 WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001, the Board of Directors of the
Company authorized the issuance of Rights (as defined in the Rights Agreement) to purchase, on the terms and subject to the provisions of the Rights Agreement, one one-thousandth of a share of the Company’s Series D Preferred Stock (each, a
“Right”); 
  
 WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001, the Board
of Directors of the Company authorized and declared a dividend distribution of one Right for every share of common stock of the Company outstanding on the Dividend Record Date (as defined in the Rights Agreement) and authorized the issuance of one
Right (subject to certain adjustments) for each share of common stock of the Company issued between the Dividend Record Date and the Distribution Date (as defined in the Rights Agreement); 
  
 WHEREAS, the Distribution Date has not occurred; and 
  
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 27 of the Rights Agreement, the Board has
approved an amendment to certain provisions of the Rights Agreement as set forth below; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Rights Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 
  
 1. Section 1(x) is amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
  
 “(x) “Exempt Person” shall mean Ingalls & Snyder, L.L.C., a New York limited liability
company, Ingalls & Snyder Value Partners, L.P., a New York limited partnership, and the purchasers listed in that certain Common Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of March 9, 2005, by and between the Company and the purchasers listed
therein.” 
  
 2. Except as expressly amended herein, all
other terms and conditions of the Rights Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
 3. This Amendment No. 5 may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute one in the same document. 
  
 [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 






 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 5 as of the day and year first
above written. 
  

			
	BOSTON LIFE SCIENCES, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Joseph P. Hernon


	 Name:
 Title:
	 	 Joseph P. Hernon
 Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary

	
	 CONTINENTAL STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY

		
	By:	 	

	 Name:
 Title:
	 	 Steven G. Nelson
 Chairman of the Board and
President
#### § 15b.16 Applicability.

This subpart applies to all programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance provided by the Department of Agriculture after the effective date of this part.

[47 FR 25470, June 11, 1982, as amended at 55 FR 52139, Dec. 19, 1990; 68 FR 51343, Aug. 26, 2003]
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Barge Line Company (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher A. Black, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.                        /s/ Christopher A. Black   Christopher A. Black   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   August 14, 2006
68
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                              SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



SUBSIDIARY                                  JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION

L.A. Gear California, Inc.                  California

Raegal Finance, Inc.                        Texas

L.A. Gear Licensing Corp.                   California

Brands Acquisition Corp.                    California

L.A. Gear (France) SARL                     France

L.A. Gear (Benelux) B.V.                    Netherlands

L.A. Gear (UK) Limited                      United Kingdom

L.A. Gear (Deutschland) GmbH                Germany

L.A. Gear (Italia) SRL                      Italy

L.A. Gear Korea                             Korea

L.A. Gear H.K. Ltd.                         Hong Kong

L.A. Gear Sportswear, Ltd.                  Hong Kong

L.A. Gear (Mexico) S.A. de C.V.             Mexico

L. A. Gear Servicios, S.A. de C.V.          Mexico

L.A. Gear - Inchcape Limited                British Virgin Islands

L.A. Gear (Far East) Limited                British Virgin Islands
STATE OF LOUISIANA 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

MICKEY ADAMS AND DONNA ADAMS 

VERSUS 

NO. 2023 CW 0870 

BERKLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

TOTAL WASTE SOLUTIONS, LLC, 

GRAND ISLE SHIPYARD, LLC AND 

ANTONUAL G. BROWN 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 

In Re: 

BEFORE: 

Key Risk Insurance Company; Total Waste 

LLC; and Antonual G. Brown, applying for 

writs, 17th Judicial District Court, 

Lafourche, No. 142079. 

GUIDRY, C.J., CHUTZ AND LANIER, JJ. 

Solutions, 

supervisory 

Parish of 

WRIT GRANTED. Notice of the hearing on plaintiffs' motion 

for summary judgment was served on defendants less than thirty 

days prior to the hearing in violation of the mandatory 

requirement of La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(C) (1) (b). Therefore, 

the trial court was procedurally barred from acting on the 

motion for summary judgment. See Acadian Properties Northshore, 

L.L.C. v. Fitzmorris, 2017-0424 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/1/17), 234 

So. 3d 927, 934. Accordingly, the district court's September 5, 

2023 ruling that denied defendants' exception of insufficiency 

of service is reversed, the exception of insufficiency of 

service is granted, and the district court's ruling that granted 

plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is vacated. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT 

FOR THE COURT 

JMG 

WRC 

WIL
#### §§ 205.682-205.689 [Reserved]
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2239 

To reduce the number of Federal judgeships for the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 4, 2013 

Mr. COTTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To reduce the number of Federal judgeships for the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Court-Packing 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF FEDERAL JUDGESHIPS FOR U.S. 

7 COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF 

8 COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. 

9 The table contained in section 44(a) of title 28, 

10 United States Code, is amended in the item relating to 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2239 IH

1 the District of Columbia circuit court of appeals, by strik2 ing ‘‘11’’ and inserting ‘‘8’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Edward Menkin, appellee, v. Muriel Connelly and Herman F. Winkelman, defendants, on appeal of Herman F. Winkelman, appellant.

Gen. Nos. 37,070, 37,071.

Opinion filed October 24, 1934.

David Lipman, for appellant. R. B. Salmon, for appellee. Edward Menkin, *pro se.*

Mr. Justice Hall

delivered the opinion of the court.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6350** 

THOMAS COVINGTON, JR. , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. GEORGE KENWORTHY , Respondent

– Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the E astern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Louise W. Flanagan , Chief District Judge. ( 5:10

- hc

- 02044

- FL )

Submitted : May 19, 2011 Decided: May 24, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un publi shed per curiam opinion
. Thomas Covington, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Coving ton, Jr. , seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certif icate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on pro cedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Covington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSE D
§ 1786.55 Application procedure. Any borrower seeking to prepay its RUS Notes under this subpart should apply to the appropriate RUS Area Director by submitting: ( a ) A board resolution that: ( 1 ) Requests approval of the prepayment of the borrower's outstanding RUS Notes, and
( 2 ) States the intent of the borrower to comply with all eligibility criteria set forth in § 1786.54 of this subpart.
( b ) A list of all RUS Notes together with the outstanding amount on such notes.
( c ) Such additional information as the Administrator shall request.
#### § 27.47 Tender or delivery of cotton; conditions.

Subject to the provisions of §§ 27.52 through 27.55, no cotton shall be tendered or delivered on a basis grade contract unless on or prior to the date fixed for delivery under such contract, and in advance of final settlement of the contract, the person making the tender shall furnish to the person receiving the same a valid outstanding cotton classification record complying with the regulations in this subpart, showing such cotton to be tenderable on a basis grade contract.

[77 FR 5380, Feb. 3, 2012]