alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31



Certification



I, Sylvan J.Dlesk, certify that:



I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc.;



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;



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;



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 subsidiary, 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 and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the period covered by this
quarterly 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



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:



(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 controls over financial reporting.



Date: August 10, 2005



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Sylvan J. Dlesk                                     
|Sylvan J. Dlesk                                         
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer/Director
|(Principal Executive Officer)                           



34
#### ALLSTATE MORTGAGE CORPORATION OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Robert LEWIN and John R. Patterson, et ux., et al., Appellees.

No. 71-644.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 8, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Edgar R. DALSON v. The HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP and National Gypsum Co.

No. 5366.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 1972.

Steven R. Plotkin, James C. Azcona, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert M. Johnston, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.

Before REDMANN, LEMMON and STOULIG, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Plaintiff, a job-injured common laborer, appeals from an award of workmen’s compensation for 15% loss of function of an arm, claiming the award should be for permanent and total disability.

*253Plaintiff’s argument is that, despite his current employment, he is entitled as a common laborer to maximum compensation because his “injury has substantially decreased his ability to compete with able-bodied workers in the flexible general labor market”, Ball v. American Marine Corp., 245 La. 515, 159 So.2d 138, 139, (1963). We conclude that plaintiff has not borne his burden of proving substantial competitive disadvantage.

Plaintiff’s disability, the result of a forearm fracture, is described by defendant’s expert as lack of the terminal 15 to 20° (of 90) in both pronation and supination 1 of his left hand (he is right-handed), and 15° (of 75) of dorsiflexion of the left wrist. Defendant’s expert estimated residual disability at 15% of the arm. Plaintiff’s expert estimated it at 10% of the arm (and 5% of the whole body).

While his arm was still in a cast, plaintiff returned to work for defendant employer. Some four or five months later a reduction in force laid him off. At that time, he testified, the state employment office declined to recommend him for “one or two jobs” because of his “recent broken arm.” (There was no showing that a long-healed broken arm would have disqualified him.) He did shortly find a better-paying job which he still held at trial time.

Testimony of his present supervisor is that plaintiff has done everything requested without complaint or apparent favoring of his injured arm; he is a good worker, and the supervisor was previously unaware that he had any disability.

Plaintiff testified that, as is consistent with the medical testimony, he had difficulty in picking up large, flat items that required his palm to be turned completely up. His prior employment did involve such lifting. No further disability to do common labor was claimed nor was any proved by the evidence.

The disability shown does not warrant a conclusion that plaintiff’s employability as a common laborer has been “substantially” affected.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. Plaintiff’s expert found an 80° loss of supination. Defendant’s expert found, on a second examination, that voluntary supination was so limited, but that passively supination could be effected with only a 15 to 20° loss.
EXHIBIT 32.2 

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 AnnualReport of Network CN Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year endedDecember 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the "Report"), I, Daley Mok, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§. 1350, as adopted pursuant to §§. 906of 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/		Daley Mok   		Daley		Mok   		Chief		Financial Officer   		March		30, 2007   
 

1

  |
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0501 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2009 - SW - 083 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40065

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

WILL ROGER LYNN ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 363

Filed: February 14, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS I S AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fif th Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan , District Judge.

Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified ten

- year sentence with five

- year determinate term for injury to child

, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defen der; Ben Patrick McGreevy, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM Will Roger Lynn pled guilty to injur y to child , a felony. Idaho Code § 18

- 1501(1) . The district court imposed a determinate ten

- year sentence, s uspended the sentence and placed Lynn on probation for seven years. Subsequently, Lynn admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. However, on its own motion, the district court reduced the sentence to a

unified term o f ten years with five years determinate. Lynn appeals, contending that the district

court abused its discretion by failing to retain jurisdiction upon revocation of his probat ion

. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well established and2 need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.
1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho
722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). When we review a sentence that is ordered into execution following a period of probation, we will examine the entire record encompassing events before and after the original judgment. State v. Hanington , 148 Idaho 26, 29, 218 P.3d 5, 8 (Ct. App. 2009). We base our review upon the facts existing when the sentence was imposed as well as events occurring between the original sentencing and the revo cation of the probation. Id

. Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by failing to retain jurisdiction upon revocation of probation . Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Lynn ’s reduced

sentence is affirmed.
|   | Exhibit 32.1 |
|--------|--------------|

| CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 |
|---------------------------------------|

| OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 |
|-----------------------------------|

| In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Winthrop Realty Trust (“the Company”) for the six  months ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael L. Ashner, Chief Executive Officer, 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By: | /s/ Michael L. Ashner |
|-----|-----------------------|

| Name: | Michael L. AshnerChief Executive Officer |
|-------|------------------------------------------|

| September 1, 2011 |
|-------------------|
#### Sol NEWBORN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-640.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 24, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7460

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY EUGENE BROOKS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (4:05-00006-HCM; 4:07-cv-00010-HCM)

Submitted: January 30, 2008 Decided: August 21, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Eugene Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Walker Putney,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Eugene Brooks seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brooks has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Brooks’

motion to amend or correct his informal brief, we deny his motion

to transfer, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the

appeal. We deny as moot Brooks’ motion for release on bond pending

review. 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.

DISMISSED
Presidential Documents

27287 

Federal Register 

Vol. 83, No. 113 

Tuesday, June 12, 2018 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of June 8, 2018 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to the 

Actions and Policies of Certain Members of the Government 

of Belarus and Other Persons To Undermine Democratic 

Processes or Institutions of Belarus 

On June 16, 2006, by Executive Order 13405, the President declared a 

national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary 

threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions and policies of certain members of the Government 

of Belarus and other persons to undermine Belarus’s democratic processes 

or institutions, manifested in the fundamentally undemocratic March 2006 

elections; to commit human rights abuses related to political repression, 

including detentions and disappearances; and to engage in public corruption, 

including by diverting or misusing Belarusian public assets or by misusing 

public authority. 

The actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Belarus 

and other persons continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat 

to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this 

reason, the national emergency declared on June 16, 2006, and the measures 

adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect 

beyond June 16, 2018. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the 

National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year 

the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13405. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to 

the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

June 8, 2018. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12719 

Filed 6–11–18; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3295–F8–P 


pmangrum on DSK30RV082PROD with PRES DOCSTrump.EPS</GPH>
Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors
Colonial Commercial Corp.:


We consent to the inclusion in Form 8-K/A-1 of Colonial Commercial Corp. dated
September 8, 1999 of our report dated June 25, 1999, with respect to the balance
sheets of Universal Supply Group, Inc. as of March 31, 1999 and 1998, and the
related statements of income and retained earnings and cash flows for the years
then ended.



                                                                    /S/ KPMG LLP
                                                                    ------------


Melville, New York
September 8, 1999
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7874 

To temporarily provide a zero rate of Federal income tax on income properly 

attributable to the trade or business of home construction. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2020 

Mr. HARDER of California introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To temporarily provide a zero rate of Federal income tax 

on income properly attributable to the trade or business 

of home construction. 

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 ‘‘Construction Jobs 

5 During Coronavirus Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ZERO RATE OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON INCOME 

7 PROPERLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TRADE 

8 OR BUSINESS OF HOME CONSTRUCTION. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any specified tax10 able year of a taxpayer engaged in the trade or business 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7874 IH

1 of home construction, the rate of tax imposed under sec2 tion 1 or 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 on 

3 so much of the taxpayer’s taxable income as is properly 

4 allocable to such trade or business shall be zero percent. 

5 (b) TRADE OR BUSINESS OF HOME CONSTRUC6 TION.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘trade or 

7 business of home construction’’ means the trade or busi8 ness of constructing dwelling units in the United States. 

9 Such term shall include the construction of components 

10 of such dwelling units only if such construction is per11 formed at the location of the final assembly of such dwell12 ing unit. Such term shall not include any trade or business 

13 if such trade or business consists of services rendered as 

14 an employee. 

15 (c) SPECIFIED TAXABLE YEAR.—For purposes of 

16 this section, the term ‘‘specified taxable year’’ means any 

17 taxable year beginning during the period beginning on 

18 January 1, 2020, and ending on the date on which the 

19 nationwide public health emergency declared under section 

20 319 of the Public Health Service Act as a result of 

21 COVID-19 ends. 

22 (d) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of the Treasury 

23 (or the Secretary’s designee) shall issue such regulations 

24 or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to 

25 carry out this section, including regulations or other guidVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:05 Aug 18, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7874.IH H7874

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7874 IH

1 ance providing for the proper application of sections 1 and 

2 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to taxable in3 come to which subsection (a) of this section does not 

4 apply. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS