alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Steven T. Klitzing, Chief Financial Officer, of CIB Marine Bancshares, Inc., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of CIB Marine Bancshares, Inc. for theyear ended December 31, 2006;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or 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 theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this 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)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being 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 registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.     Date: November 6, 2007 By: /s/ Steven T. Klitzing     Steven T. Klitzing    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Copper Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'),  I, Roger W. Sherman,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

     (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 result of  operations of the
Company.


/s/ Roger W. Sherman
--------------------
Roger W. Sherman
Chief Executive Officer
December 14, 2002
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002

 

In connection withthe quarterly report of Continental Materials Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 28, 2008, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James G. Gidwitz, theChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, JosephJ. Sum, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and Section 1350, of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of theUnited States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to our knowledge:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)          The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company for the periods presented in the Report.

 

 

August 12,2008

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/    James  G. Gidwitz |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   |   | James G. Gidwitz                             |
|   |   | Chairman of the Board  and                   |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer                      |
|   |   |                                         |
|   |   |                                         |
|   | By:    | /s/    Joseph  J. Sum    |
|   |   | Joseph J. Sum                                |
|   |   | Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer  |

 

----
Mortgage Reinstatement Program

Brief description Provide funds to eliminate or reduce past due payments and other

delinquent amounts, including payments under a forbearance plan,

on forward mortgages, loans secured by manufactured homes, or

contracts for deed.

HAF Funds may be used to bring the account fully current, with no

remaining delinquent amounts, and to repay amounts advanced by

the lender or servicer on the borrower’s behalf for property

charges, including property taxes, hazard insurance premiums, flood

or wind insurance premiums, ground rents, condominium fees,

cooperative maintenance fees, planned unit development fees,

homeowners’ association fees or utilities that the servicer advanced

to protect lien position. Payment may also include any reasonably

required legal fees.

HAF funds may be used to supplement other loss mitigation options

offered by the servicer under investor requirements or where,

without HAF funds, the homeowner would not qualify for that loss

mitigation option.

Maximum amount of

assistance per

homeowner

Eligible homeowners will be allocated up to $17,000 per residence

in Wyoming Homeowner Assistance Fund (HAF) Program through

any combination of HAF programs, with mortgage reinstatement

having priority.

Homeowner eligibility

criteria and

documentation

requirements

Eligibility Criteria

● Household income must be at or below 150% AMI

● The property must be currently occupied as the

homeowner’s primary residence

● The homeowner must have experienced a Covid-related

financial hardship after January 21, 2020

Documentation Requirements

● Completed application

● Proof of residency - recent utility bill

● Self-attestation of a Covid-related financial hardship after

January 21, 2020

● 2021 tax returns or most recent filed tax return Statement as

to whether the homeowner is able to continue making

payments on the loan after assistance
Loan eligibility criteria

specific to the program

● Delinquent by at least one payment, including due to a

forbearance period

● Must be the first loan on the property

Form of assistance Assistance will be structured as a non-recourse grant

Payment requirements Payments will be made directly to the lender or servicer.

Process The State will offer an online portal for homeowners to submit their

application materials. Eligibility determinations will be made prior

to requesting information from the mortgage servicer in order to

work within the tight regulatory timelines for servicers and insurers

to prevent foreclosure.

● The borrower will complete the application in the online

portal.

● Case managers will review the application and make an

eligibility determination.

● For borrowers deemed eligible for the program, case

managers will send the third party authorization and a

request for the current delinquent amount from the servicer.

● Servicers will supply the current delinquent amount for the

borrower.

● DFS will make payment to the servicer on the borrower’s

behalf and send an award notice to the borrower via email.
(b) (7)(E)


(b) (5)






(b) (7)(E)







(b) (5)
256 La. 899

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Leonard C. BREAUX v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 50904.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 23, 1970.

In re: Leonard C. Breaux applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.

BARHAM, Justice, is of the opinion that an evidentiary hearing should be ordered held by the district court. The basic complaint is denial of right to appeal and is not negated on the face of the record. See State ex rel. Myers v. Henderson, 256 La. 784, 239 So.2d 170, where we ordered a hearing under facts not distinguishable from these.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JANINE KOTOCAVAGE,

Appellant,

v.

PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-1546

[March 2, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Paige Hardy Gillman; L.T. Case No. 

502020CA007558XXXXMB.

Chelsea T. Silvia and Mark Packo of GED Lawyers, LLP, Boca Raton, 

for appellant.

Edward G. Guedes of Weiss Seroto Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., Coral 

Gables, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, CONNER and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS ON PAGE 3 THROUGH 5 OF THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN IT'S ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1,000

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              3,194
<SECURITIES>                                          813
<RECEIVABLES>                                       2,401
<ALLOWANCES>                                        1,899
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    4,562
<PP&E>                                              3,826
<DEPRECIATION>                                        664
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     11,514
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 538
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             5
<COMMON>                                            3,900
<OTHER-SE>                                          4,040
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       11,514
<SALES>                                               778
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      897
<CGS>                                                 868
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         868
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      517
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    (89)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (471)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          (10)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (481)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (481)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.08)


</TABLE>
#### John SYKES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 73-164.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 23, 1973.

John Sykes, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

This petition for writ of habeas corpus raises questions as to admissibility of a confession which was allowed in the trial court against Sykes. On direct appeal this court affirmed because the record amply supported the findings.

Petition denied.

MANN, C. J., and McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JTJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.1


                                          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


To Board of Directors
Advanced Logic Research, Inc.

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(No. 333-10865 and 33-59763) on Form S-8 of Advanced Logic Research, Inc. of our
report dated October 24, 1996,  except as to note 14 which is as of November 26,
1996,  related to the  consolidated  balance sheets of Advanced Logic  Research,
Inc. as of September 30, 1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated  statements
of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows and related schedule for each
of the years in the  three-year  period ended  September 30, 1996,  which report
appears in the September  30, 1996 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Advanced  Logic
Research, Inc.



KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
Orange County, California
December 26, 1996
NUMBER 13-11-00463-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

CHRISTOPHER JONES,TDCJ#656546, Appellant,

v.

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN AND TDCJ-ID,ET AL., Appellees. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 52ndDistrict Court 

of Coryell County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and JusticesGarza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on July 30, 2011. On July 25, 

2011, appellant filed a brief that was not in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. The brief failed generally to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See TEX.R.APP.P. 38.1 (f), (g) and (k).
2

On November 18, 2011, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief failed 

to comply with Rule 38.1 (f), (g), and (k) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The 

brief does not state concisely all issues or points presented for review as required by Rule 

38.1(f); does not state concisely and without argument the facts pertinent to the issues or 

points presented as required by Rule 38.1(g); and does not contain an appendix as 

required by Rule 38.1(k). See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1

Appellant was directed to file an amended brief in compliance with the Texas Rules 

of Appellate Procedure within ten days of the date of the letter, and notified that if the 

Court received another brief that did not comply, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit 

appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief, under 

which circumstances the Court may affirm the judgment or dismiss the appeal. See Id. 

38.9(a), 42.3(b),(c). Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice.

Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and they 

must therefore comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. 

Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978). If the appellate court determines that the 

briefing rules have been flagrantly violated, it may require a brief to be amended, 

supplemented, or redrawn. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a). If the appellant does not file 

another brief that complies with the rules of appellate procedure, the appellate court may 

strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed 

to file a brief. Id. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), where an 

appellant has failed to file a brief, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution.
3

Accordingly, we strike appellant=s non-conforming brief and order the appeal 

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 

42.3(b)(c). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

16th day of February, 2012.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2362 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2362

     To provide interim appropriations for the Coast Guard Retired 
  Serviceman's Family Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans for each 
      fiscal year after fiscal year 2020, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 5, 2021

    Mr. Green of Tennessee introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide interim appropriations for the Coast Guard Retired 
  Serviceman's Family Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans for each 
      fiscal year after fiscal year 2020, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Gold Star Spouses Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. INTERIM APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE COAST GUARD RETIRED SERVICEMAN'S 
              FAMILY PROTECTION AND SURVIVOR BENEFITS PLANS.

    (a) In General.--There are hereby appropriated, out of any money in 
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for each fiscal year after 
fiscal year 2020, such sums as necessary for payment of the Coast Guard 
Retired Serviceman's Family Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, as 
are described in the provision regarding Coast Guard retired pay in 
title II of division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 
(Public Law 116-260), at a rate for operations and under the terms and 
conditions provided by the most recent law making full-year 
appropriations for such Coast Guard Retired Serviceman's Family 
Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans.
    (b) Effect of Enactment of Subsequent Appropriations.--If an 
appropriation for such Coast Guard Retired Serviceman's Family 
Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, or a general appropriation bill 
providing appropriations for the Coast Guard without provision for such 
Coast Guard Retired Serviceman's Family Protection and Survivor 
Benefits Plans, is enacted into law on any date after the date of the 
enactment of this Act that provides for appropriations during a fiscal 
year following the expenditure of funds during such fiscal year 
pursuant to this Act--
            (1) such expenditure shall be charged to such appropriation 
        (if any); and
            (2) appropriations made available for such fiscal year 
        pursuant to this Act shall not be available after the date of 
        enactment of such appropriation or general appropriation bill.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32



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 quarterly report of Northeast Utilities (the registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Charles W. Shivery, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the registrant and David R. McHale, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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 result of operations of the registrant.







|    |                                                
|--- | -----------------------------------------------
|/s/ | Charles W. Shivery                             
|    | Charles W. Shivery                             
|    | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer







|    |                                                     
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ | David R. McHale                                     
|    | David R. McHale                                     
|    | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer







Date:  May 7, 2010





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
(January 22, 2002)

#### Richard W. Zuckerman, Appellant, v BMG Direct Marketing, Inc., Respondent.

[737 NYS2d 14]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered June 28, 2000, which, in an uncertified class action for deceptive acts and practices in violation of General Business Law § 349, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint alleges that defendant, a music club operator engaged in the selling of musical recordings by mail, bills its customers for shipping and handling in “false” and “inflated” amounts that exceed defendant’s actual shipping and handling costs. Such allegations were properly held insufficient to state a cause of action under General Business Law § 349 in view of defendant’s promotional materials setting forth the exact amount to be charged for the shipping and handling of each recording selected. As a matter of law, a disclosure that a speci*331fied amount will be charged for shipping and handling cannot cause a reasonable consumer to believe that such amount necessarily is equal to or less than the seller’s actual shipping and handling costs *(cf., Sands v Ticketmaster-New York, Inc.,*207 AD2d 687, *lv dismissed in part and denied in part*85 NY2d 904). “Thus,” as stated by the motion court, “in a case such as this, where there is no coercion involved, the focus is whether the amount of the charge is disclosed. If so, the question of whether the amount charged is unreasonable or excessive is not an issue for the courts to address” (citations omitted). We have considered and rejected plaintiffs other arguments, and defendant’s argument that it has a complete defense under section 349 (d) based on the Federal Trade Commission’s negative option rule requiring sellers such as defendant to clearly disclose whether its billing charges include an amount for postage and handling (16 CFR 425.1 [a] [1] [iv]). Plaintiffs claim is not based on a failure to disclose charges for postage and handling, but rather on allegedly deceptive statements that caused buyers to believe that the disclosed charges were not, as plaintiffs expert describes them, a “profit center” *(see, Morelli v Weider Nutrition Group,*275 AD2d 607; *Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J. v Philip Morris, Inc.,*133 F Supp 2d 162). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.