alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, David Ross Seaton, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Marshall Edwards, Inc.; 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(s) 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 controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within these entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared:  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5.  The Company’s other certifying officer(s) 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:
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: May 11, 2005 /s/ DAVID SEATON   David R. Seaton        Chief Financial Officer  
30
EXHIBIT 32.1





WRITTEN
STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES —
OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of
Hines Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (“the Company”), each hereby certifies
that to his/her knowledge, on the date hereof:





(a) the
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008,
filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section l3(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b) information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:
August 14,
2008                                                                                                 /s/ CHARLESN.
HAZEN


Charles N.
Hazen


President and Chief Executive Officer











Date:
August 14,
2008                                                                                                 /s/ SHERRIW.
SCHUGART


Sherri
W. Schugart


Chief Financial
Officer
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement

I, Joseph
Guage, Vice President - Operations Strategy of The Student Loan Corporation (SLC), the administrator under the administration agreement and the servicer under the servicing agreement, each among SLC, SLC Student Loan Receivables I, Inc.
and certain others (together, the Servicing Agreement), relating to SLC Student Loan Trust 2010-1, certify that:



|(a) | A review of SLCs activities during the calendar year ended December 31, 2013 (the Reporting Period) and of SLCs performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, SLC has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 20, 2014



By:

/s/ Joseph GuageName:

Joseph GuageTitle:

Vice President - Operations Strategy
(Reap. Dec. 8330)

#### James H. Rhodes & Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 703357, etc.

(Decided September 9, 1954)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals to reappraisement listed herein are the same in all material respects as the issues in the case of *United States*v. *Schroeder & Tremayne, Inc., et al.,*Suit 4783 and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that the entered values of the merchandise involved in the eases listed herein are equal to the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the Country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise was no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these cases may be deemed submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

*519On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the entered values.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a),
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of United America Indemnity, Ltd.;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 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 Quarterly Report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers 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:
 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 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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
Quarterly Report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this Quarterly Report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Kevin L. Tate

Kevin L. TateChief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Quanta Capital Holdings Ltd. (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscalquarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report")and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted in Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Jonathan J. R. Dodd, Interim ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of myknowledge:

1.    The report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.    Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

Date: August 8, 2005

/s/ Jonathan J. R. DoddJonathan J. R.Dodd (Principal FinancialOfficer)

----
No. 53110.

#### Bing Kee & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 73404-K, etc. (San Francisco).

*305Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 40271.

#### Protests 842124-G, etc., of Anderson & Meyer et al. (San Francisco).

*511Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49302) and *Kraft*v. *United States*(T. D. 47955) the protests were sustained as to the weight of cheese.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Willard F. Henry,

Case No. 2:10-cv-1056

Plaintiff, 

v. Judge Graham

CSX Transportation, Inc., Magistrate Judge Abel

Defendant.

ORDER

Before the Court is defendant CSX Transportation, Inc.’s motion in limine regarding the

causation standard to be applied under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. §

51 et seq. (Doc. 53.) Defendant argues that the proper causation standard under FELA is proximate

cause.

Remarkably absent from defendant’s motion is any reference to CSX Transportation, Inc. v.

McBride, 131 S.Ct. 2630 (2011), a case that goes directly against defendant’s argument and in which

defendant was a party. The Supreme Court in McBride was exceedingly clear:

In accord with the text and purpose of the Act, this Court’s decision in Rogers v.

Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 77 S.Ct. 443, 1 L.Ed.2d 493 (1957), and the

uniform view of federal appellate courts, we conclude that the Act does not

incorporate “proximate cause” standards developed in non-statutory common-law

tort actions. The charge proper in FELA cases, we hold, simply tracks the language

Congress employed, informing juries that a defendant railroad caused or contributed

to a plaintiff or employee’s injury if the railroad’s negligence played any part in

bringing about the injury.

131 S.Ct. at 2634.

Given the clarity of the Supreme Court’s holding, defendant’s argument that proximate cause is the

proper standard is not “warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending,

modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law . . . .” FED.R.CIV. PRO. 11(b)(2). 

The motion is DENIED.

Case: 2:10-cv-01056-JLG-MRA Doc #: 57 Filed: 08/31/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ James L. Graham 

JAMES L. GRAHAM

United States District Judge

DATE: August 31, 2012

Case: 2:10-cv-01056-JLG-MRA Doc #: 57 Filed: 08/31/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.55


                                 SBL CORPORATION

                                  P.O. BOX 705

                             OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73101


April 1, 2001

Mr. Jim Jones
LSB Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 754
Oklahoma City, OK  73101

RE:    SBL Corporation Demand Note for $1,750,000 ("SBL Note")


This letter confirms the commitment of SBL Corporation to Prime Financial
Corporation. LSB Industries, Inc. and affiliates ("LSB") to forbear from
demanding payment of principal in excess of $300,000 under SBL Note until April
1, 2001, unless LSB receives cash proceeds in connection with either a) the sale
or other disposition of KAC Acquisition Corp. and/or Kestrel Aircraft, and/or b)
some other source that is not in LSB's projections for the year 2001.

I have also made this commitment to Ernst & Young in connection with Ernst &
Young's audit of LSB Industries, Inc. and ClimaChem, Inc. and the issuance of
the opinion of auditors to be issued in connection with the filing of LSB
Industries, Inc. and ClimaChem, Inc.'s Form 10-K for the year 2000.

Sincerely yours,

Jack E. Golsen
President
#### Sucevic *v.*Johnson, Appellant.

Argued March 18, 1969.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*James F. Manley,*with him *Burns, Manley é Little,*for appellant.

*Ines W. Cordisco,*for appellee.

June 27, 1969 :

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This action in trespass seeks recovery for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff in the course of his employment with a subcontractor engaged in performing the masónry work in connection with the construction of a building. One of the defendants, the general contractor, filed preliminary objections to the complaint challenging, inter alia, the jurisdiction of the Common Pleas Court to entertain the action. The gen*129eral contractor contends that exclusive jurisdiction is under The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act of June *2,*1915, P. L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. §1 et seq. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections and this appeal followed. We quash.

The order appealed from is interlocutory and does not involve a jurisdictional question within the meaning of the Act of March 5, 1925, P. L. 23, §1, 12 P.S. §672. See *Repyneck v. Tarantino,*403 Pa. 300, 169 A. 2d 527 (1961).

Appeal quashed.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RANDY M. WALKER, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

No. 29,999

May 30, 1975

*Colonel Victor A. DeFiori, Captain Claud H. Drinnen,*and *Captain Robert C. Mueller*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Captain Joel M. Martel*and *Captain Allan A. Toomey*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam:

The staff judge advocate’s post-trial review omitted any reference to the recommendation of the accused’s battalion commander that the accused not be eliminated from the service. This was prejudicial error. *United States v Parker,*22 USCMA 358, 47 CMR 10 (1973); *United States v Wartsbaugh,*21 USCMA 535, 45 CMR 309 (1972); *United States v Eller,*20 USCMA 401, 43 CMR 241 (1971); *United States v Boatner,*20 USCMA 376, 43 CMR 216 (1971); *United States v Rivera,*20 USCMA 6, 42 CMR 198 (1970).

The decision of the US Army Court of Military Review is reversed and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. The Court of Military Review may set aside the bad-conduct discharge or order a new post-trial review and action by the convening authority.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1507

JAVIER ALEXIS REYES,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of a n Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : February 17, 2023 Decided: April 18, 2023

Before RICHARDSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Ivan Yacub

, YACUB LAW OFFICES, LLC , Woodbridge, Virginia, for

Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General , Janice K.

Redfern, Senior Litigation Counsel , Beau J. Baumann, Office of Immigration Litigation,

Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Washington, D.C., for

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1507 Doc: 23 Filed: 04/18/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:

Javier Alexis Reyes, a native and citizen of Honduras , petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s

decision denying Reyes’ motion to terminate and denying his application for cancellation

of removal. On appeal, Reyes raises a single claim, contending that 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.15(b)

- (c) (2022 ) is inconsistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) (1)(G) and is therefore ultra

vire s. We find no reversible error and so deny the petition for review. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

material s before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1507 Doc: 23 Filed: 04/18/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.1

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made effective as of the 24th day of March, 2015, by and between PAUL D. TOBIAS (the “Executive”) and MACKINAC FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation (the “Company”).

 

BACKGROUND

 

On August 31, 2012, the Company and the Executive entered into an Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”).  The Company and the Executive now wish to amend the Employment Agreement as provided herein.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the terms and conditions set forth below, the parties agree as follows:

 

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

 

1.             AMENDMENT TO DEFINED TERM.  The term “Commencement Date” as used in the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to be March 24, 2015.

 

2.             AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2(B)(I).  The first sentence of Section 2(b)(i) of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and amended to read as follows:

 

“During the Employment Period, the Executive shall receive an annual base salary at least equal  to Three Hundred Six Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty One 10/100 ($306,731.10) (the “Annual Base Salary”), which shall be paid in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll practices for senior executive officers of the Company as in effect from time to time.”

 

3.             CONSTRUCTION.  Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in the Employment Agreement.  The terms of this Amendment amend and modify the Employment Agreement as if fully set forth in the Employment Agreement.  If there is any conflict between the terms, conditions and obligations of this Amendment and the Employment Agreement, this Amendment’s terms, conditions and obligations shall control.  All other provisions of the Employment Agreement not specifically modified by this Amendment are preserved.  This Amendment may be executed in counterparts (including via facsimile or .pdf), each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same document.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.

 

	
THE EXECUTIVE:  
    	
 
    	
THE COMPANY:  
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
MACKINAC FINANCIAL   CORPORATION  
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ PAUL D. TOBIAS  
    	
 
    	
By:  
    	
/s/ WALTER J.   ASPATORE
    
	
PAUL D. TOBIAS
    	
 
    	
Name: 
    	
Walter J. Aspatore  
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title: 
    	
Lead Director
No. 46253.

#### Protest 10107-K of Burns Lumber Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that this case is the same as that of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith the protest was sustained as claimed.
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-11-0485 SAT Date: 8/5/2011 Print Date: 8/31/2011

Related cases : Health related cases: Ecotox related cases :

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 2 1

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 1 1 PMN 3 1 1 Hyd Pdt

Exposure Based Review : Health: Ecotox: N o Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Inhalation Ecotox: N o releases to water Fate: ; Hyd Pdt negl Keywords : Keywords: ONCO; SENS-L,S; IRR-L,MM Summary of Assessment :
Fate : Fate Summary: P-11-0485 FATE:

S = Reacts Hydrolysis half-life = hr VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = PMN 90-99 via hydrolysis; then Hyd Pdt 90 via sorption Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > moSorption to soils/sediments = v.strong PBT Potential: PMN P1B1; Hyd Pdt P3B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

Health : Health Summary: Absorption of is poor all routes ( p che m ); expected to react, especially in the lung. Concern for oncogenicity based on 400, 70% <500, 90% <1000]; respiratory and dermal sensitization and lung and mucous membrane irritation based on the

Test Data: Data for (-) Salmonella with and without activation; (-) E. coli with and without activation; rat oral LD0 = 2000 mg/kg; rat dermal LD0 = 2000 mg/kg; mild eye irritation in rabbits; mild skin irritation in rabbits; (+) for skin sensitization in a mouse local lymph node assay at >= 5% ai

Ecotox :

Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 * daphnid 48-h LC50 * green algal 96-h EC50 * fish

_ chronic value * daphnid

_ chronic value * algal

_ chronic value * Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value

_ Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for ; SAR chemical class = ; S = reacts with water at 20 C (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) *

SARs SAR Class
Ecotox Factors Comments:
SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
No. 60919.

#### P. John Hanrahan, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 287534-K (New York).

*553Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, effective July 1, 1955, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.