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




Certification
of Chief Financial Officer




I,
William E. Vastardis, Chief Financial Officer of Full Circle Capital Corporation
certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Full Circle Capital
Corporation;




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 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 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 report is being prepared;




(b)
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 report based on such evaluation; and




(c)
disclosed in this 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




5. The
registrant’s other certifying officer 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):




(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; and




(b) 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.




Dated
this 28th day of September 2010.




By:
              /s/    William
      E. VastardisWilliam
      E. Vastardis
                Chief
      Financial Officer
#### Commonwealth, Appellant, *v.*Brady.

*230Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*David*jP. *Truam,*Assistant District Attorney, and *Paul D. Shafer, Jr.,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellant.

*R. Charles Thomas,*for appellee.

*231July 15, 1969:

Opinion by

MA. Justice O’Brien,

Appellee, James Lee Brady, filed a post-conviction petition, alleging that he was denied his right to appeal. The Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Crawford County denied the petition on January 23, 1969, stating that the only issue raised in the motion for new trial was that appellee’s *Miranda*rights were violated. Since the only issues which can be raised on appeal are those raised in a post-trial motion, and since in the court’s view *Miranda*was inapplicable to retrials, a hearing was denied. The Superior Court, in an order of June 5, 1969, quite properly remanded for a hearing as to whether appellee had waived his right to appeal. On June 5, it had not yet been decided that as a matter of State law *Miranda*was inapplicable to retrials. However, on June 27, 1969, in *Commonwealth v. Willman,*434 Pa. 489, 255 A. 2d 534 (1969), we held that *Miranda*was inapplicable to retrials. Appellee thus has no issue which he can raise on appeal, and therefore it would be a vain gesture to order a hearing on the issue of whether he waived his right to appeal.

We note that, in adopting the rather unusual position that it is proper for us to deny appellee’s right to a direct appeal because he could not win the appeal, if taken, we do so only under the particular factual posture of this case, where only a few brief weeks ago we decided, after briefing and argument, appellant’s only argument adversely to him. As a practical matter, it would make no sense to permit such a useless appeal.

Our opinion, however, should not be read as indicating that we will in the future be receptive to the argument that a prisoner should be denied an appeal because the record indicates that his appeal may be futile. The merits of the appeal will properly be con*232sidered-by us,-, with briefs from counsel, when tbe appeal'is'taken.,- and we will, not lose sight of the fact that even when the law seems to be against an appellant, it is always open to him at least to argue that precedents should be' overturned.

The allocatur is granted and the order of the Superior Court is reversed.
No. 55333.

#### Alfred Kohlberg, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 155216-K and 156285-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
----

| (a) | a review of SLC’s activities during the calendar year ended December 31, 2023 (the “Reporting Period”) and of SLC’s performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision; and |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (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 28, 2024 |   |                                                                             |
|----------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|           |   |                                                                             |
|           | By:    | /s/ Li Ma                                                                        |  |
|           |   | Name:  Li Ma                                                                |
|           |   | Title:  Senior Vice President and Treasurer of The Student Loan Corporation |

----
#### John B. Miley, Resp’t, *v.*The Broadway & Seventh Avenue R. R. Co., App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,*

*Filed January 24, 1890.)*

Negligence—Evidence.

In an action for injuries caused by negligence, a witness was asked what was the probability of plaintiff's recovery, and answered that the limb was liable to trouble him for many years, and that he had known an injury of that kind to trouble a man and to be tender about thirty years. The court refused to strike out this answer *Held,*that this evidence was speculative merely and could not form the basis for the recovery of damages for permanent injury.

Appeal from judgment entered upon verdict of jury, and from order denying motion for new trial.

*Samuel B.*Clark, for app’lts; *Alfred B.*Cruikshank, for resp’t.

*108Van Brunt, P. J.

This action was brought to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the negligence of the servants of the defendants.

There is only one question presented by the appellant upon this appeal, and that is that there is no evidence in the case sufficiently certain to justify the inference that the injuries received by the plaintiff would be permanent, and that, therefore, the court erred in refusing to charge that there was no evidence in the case which would justify the jury in awarding the plaintiff damages ■ as for a permanent injury, and that it was error for the court to charge the jury that if they found that the plaintiff had sustained permanent injuries that they might make compensation for the same.

The only evidence as to whether the injury would be permanent or not was the evidence of Dr. Bradley, who after testifying as to the plaintiff’s injuries was asked this question:

Q. What is the probability of his recovery ? A. The limb is liable to trouble him for many years; I have known it to trouble a man, an injury of that kind, and to be tender about thirty years.

The defendant’s counsel moved to strike out this answer as incompetent and speculative, which motion was denied and an exception taken.

This evidence within the rulings of the court of appeals could not form the basis for permanent injury.

It comes clearly within the rule laid down in the case of *Strohm*v. *N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co.,*96 N. Y., 305, and the rule also adverted to in the case of *Griswold*v. *N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co.,*115 N. Y., 61; 23 N. Y. State Rep., 729, in no way justifies the use which was made of it in the case at bar.

The question may have been proper enough but the answer was clearly speculative. It gave consequences which were contingent, speculative or merely possible and not those consequences which are reasonably to be expected to follow an injury, and therefore could not form a basis for the recovery of damages for permanent injuries.

The judgment and order appeared from should be reversed and a new trial ordered with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Daniels, J,, concurs.

Brady, J.

I concur upon the ground that the answer was not responsive and should have been stricken out
EX-99.5
                                PATENT

United States Patent No. 5,536,223

Dennis A. Ferber, July 16, 1996

Exercise Device.

ABSTRACT


An exercise device having a coupling assembly attaching a pair of
elongated handles, is provided for reversible rotation
thereabout.  Each of the handles includes a tubular housing
within which a torque adjustment apparatus is disposed.  The
coupling assembly permits reversible frictional adjustment of the
angle formed by the elongated handles to provide exercise of the
musculature of the chest and shoulders as the user moves the arms
toward or away from each other.  The user can adjust the level of
resistance to arm movement by adjustment at the coupling
assembly.  The coupling assembly includes a first spatulate
member having a first elongated arm fixed thereto for rotational
movement thereabout, a conical member is fixed at the base to the
first spatulate member at an angle to the first elongated arm.
An integral anti-rotation boss having an integral threaded rod is
faxed thereto, includes an elongated receiving member disposed at
an angle to the second elongated arm.  The receiving member has a
recess for receipt of the conical member, for rotational movement
thereabout, and for receipt of an anti-rotation disc which is
fixed to the boss.  An elongated nut is disposed coaxially within
the receiving member for thread engagement with the threaded rod.
Cup shaped washers, urged against the anti-rotation disc b the
elongated nut provide a capability of altering resistance to
movement of the elongated arms.
No. 42996.

#### Protest 993775-G of Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

On the record presented the protest was overruled.
19–006

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session 108–11

WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE 

REPORT TO ACCOMPANY, AND PROVIDING FOR CORRECTIONS IN THE ENROLLMENT OF, H.J. RES. 2, MAKING 

FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2003

FEBRUARY 13 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 12), 2003.—Referred to the House 

Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 71] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 71, by a non-record vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution by adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives all points of order against the conference 

report to accompany H.J. Res. 2, Making Further Continuing Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2003, and against its consideration. 

The rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as 

read. The rule further provides that upon adoption of the conference report the House shall be considered to have adopted H. 

Con. Res. 35. 

The waiver of all points of order against the conference report 

and against its consideration includes a wavier of clause 8(a) of 

Rule XXII (requiring a three-day layover of any conference report). 

The waiver of clause 8(a) of Rule XXII is needed because the conference report became available on the legislative day of February 

12, 2003 and may be considered by the House as early as February 

13, 2003.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Go Green Directories, Inc.


|    |                                                                                                                      
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                      
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




|    |                                                                                                                                                     
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                     
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

March 1, 2012  /s/ Brian J. OShaughnessy Brian J. OShaughnessy, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7086

WILLIAM E. ALTON, III,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

POLLY A. SOCKS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-98-2761-AW)

Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 16, 2001

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William E. Alton, III, Appellant Pro Se. Randolph Stuart Sergent,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Alton, who was represented by counsel in the district court,

failed to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report in the

time afforded him by the district court, waiving review of the

magistrate judge’s report by both the district court and this

court. See Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200-01 (4th Cir.

1997). Notwithstanding this failure, the district court conducted

a de novo review and denied relief on the merits.

2

PER CURIAM:

William E. Alton, III, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, made after an

evidentiary hearing, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* See Alton v. Socks,

No. CA-98-2761-AW (D. Md. filed May 30, 2001; entered May 31,

2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  6.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Hines Real Estate Investment
Trust, Inc.;7.
    
    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;8.
    
    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;9.
    
    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)) 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 report is being prepared;b.
    
    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
report based on such evaluation; andc.
    
    disclosed in this 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
 10.
    
    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):
 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.
 Date:  November 14, 2005
    /s/ Sherri W. SchugartSherri W. SchugartChief Financial Officer 37
Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
 Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of SP 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 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 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 subsidiary, 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 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 report
based on such evaluation; and
 c)
    
    disclosed in this 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
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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):
 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; and
 b)
    
    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.
 March 29, 2011
Date
    
    /s/ Jeffrey L. Weaver

Jeffrey L. Weaver 

President and Chief Executive Officer