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

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I Joseph Mazin, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, certify
that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of The Flamemaster
     Corporation;

2.   Based on my knowledge, the Report does not contain any untrue statement of
     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
     10-QSB;

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, for the periods presented in the Report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have;

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant is made known to me by
          others within the Company, particularly during the period in which
          this 10-QSB is being prepared;

     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
          procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of the
          Report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c.   presented in the Report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the
          disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the
          Evaluation date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

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

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

6.   I have indicated in the Report whether or not there were significant
     changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly
     affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent
     evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
     deficiencies and material weakness.


     /s/ Joseph Mazin
     --------------------
     Joseph Mazin,
     CEO and CFO
     August 11, 2004
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March

26 , 2013
.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00071

- CV
LIZZIE J. LOVALL, IN DIVIDUALLY; KEITH L. SHAW; INDIVIDUALLY: KENNET H L. YOUNG; INDIVIDU ALLY; KIM L.

SHAW, INDIVIDUALLY , Appellant s

V. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS , INDIVIDUALLY, OFFI CIALLY AND VICARIOUSLY; MAY WAL KER, CONSTABLE, PREC INCT 7, INDIVIDUALLY; RUTH M CDUGLE, INDIVIDUALLY ; DARLA TURNER, INDIVIDUALLY; JOHN K. GEORGE, OFFI CIALLY, INDIVIDUALLY ; GOW

- MING CHAO, INDIVIDUA LLY; ET AL , Appellee s
On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 23410

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from an order signed December 27, 2012

. Appellants Lizzie Lovall, Keith L. Shaw, Kenneth L. Young, and Kim L. Shaw2

filed suit against Harris County, Texas, May Walker, Ruth McDugle, Darla Turner, John K. George, Gow

- Ming Chao, and Chia

- Li Chao. On August 21, 2012, the trial court dismissed appellants’ case against all parties. On October 23, 2012, the trial court granted appellants’ motion to vacate the dismissal except as to Gow

Ming Chao and Chia

- Li Chao. Appellants filed a motion to reinstate their cases against Gow

- Ming Chao and Chia

- Li Chao, which was denied on December 27, 2012. On November 28, 2012, the trial court granted a motion for summary judgment filed by Harris County, May Walker, Darla Turner, and Ruth McDugle. On January 22, 2013, appellants filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal “the Court’s Dismissal Order.” After the partial grant of the motion to vacate , and the summary judgment, there remain outstanding causes of action against John K. George. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgme nts. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if permitted by statute. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson , 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps , 842 S.W.2d 266, 27 2 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
On February 18, 2013 , appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction because causes of action remain against defendant John K. George

. The record supports appellees’ motion

. Accordingly, the app eal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Busby.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES
                                      CODE)

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of SCOLR, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does
hereby certify that:

      To my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2002 (the "Form 10-KSB") of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

March 28, 2003               By: /s/ David T. Howard
Date                         David T. Howard, President, Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to SCOLR, Inc. and will be retained by SCOLR, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### DIAZ DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. Mississippi STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION.

No. 50318.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 14, 1978.

Sekul, Hornsby, Wallace & Teel, Walter W. Teel, Thomas L. Wallace, Biloxi, for appellant.

Gillespie & Weinberg, Virgil Gillespie, Gulfport, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Harrison County; Floyd J. Logan, Judge.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and LEE and BOWLING, JJ.

Affirmed.

*764SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM and COFER, JJ., concur.
#### Tom Roy JENKINS, Petitioner, v. M. H. HARRISON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Bituminous Casualty Corporation and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 38490.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 19, 1969.

Peter S. Schwedock, Miami, of Law Offices of Howard N. Pelzner, Miami, for petitioner.

Eugene E. Williams, of Williams & Ja-bara, Miami, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

DREW, Justice.

The Judge of Industrial Claims in this compensation case found: “In view of the fact that the physician chosen by the employer/carrier recommended further medical care under the guidance of an orthopedic specialist and such care was never furnished, I find that the employer/carrier is es-topped from asserting the statute of limitations because of its own failure to act in this matter.”

The Full Commission reversed the award of compensation which was made by the Judge of Industrial Claims on the ground that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations because the “claim was not filed until two years and two months after Dr. Clement made his examination and recommended further remedial treatment *which the claimant chose not to take.’’*(emphasis added)

We find nothing in the record to indicate that the claimant knowingly chose not to take the treatment recommended by Dr. Clement. On the contrary, the record fully supports the material finding of the Judge of Industrial Claims with reference to this matter. The report of Dr. Clement recommending further medical care of claimant was sent to the employer/carrier by Dr. Clement. Its disclosures were never made known to claimant.

*912Employer/carrier disputes the finding of the Judge of Industrial Claims that Dr. Clement was the physician chosen by it. We find that while this statement is technically correct and that Dr. Clement was chosen initially not by the employer/carrier but by another physician, Dr. Clement’s report was made to the employer/carrier and paid for by it. Under such circumstances the result is exactly the same as if he had been initially employed and supports the material conclusion of the Judge of Industrial Claims that such conduct es-topped the employer/carrier from pleading the statute as a defense. This self-executing Workmen’s Compensation Act requires the employer/carrier under the circumstances shown by this record to make the recommendation of the physician known to the claimant and make reasonable efforts to see that such treatment is administered. At the very least, the claimant should have an opportunity to either knowingly accept or knowingly reject such treatment to entitle the carrier to plead the statute of limitations.

The Order of the Full Commission is quashed with directions to reinstate the Order of the Judge of Industrial Claims.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the accompanying Amendment No.
1 to the Annual Report of Azzurra Holding Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December
31, 2012 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Daniel Rumsey, Principal
Executive and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the
Company, certifies, to my best knowledge and belief, 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.








Date:
April 9, 2019
/s/ Daniel W.
RumseyDaniel
W. Rumsey
Chief
Executive Officer
(Principal
Executive and Financial Officer)
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Independent Marine Oil Services LLC ) ASBCA No. 62603

)

Under Contract Nos. SPE606-19-M-3028

 SPE606-19-M-3029

)

)

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Steven J. Lewicky, Esq.

 Lewicky, O’Connor, Hunt & Meiser, LLC

 Fulton, MD

James F. Sposato, Esq.

 Counsel

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Daniel K. Poling, Esq.

 DLA Chief Trial Attorney

Alex M. Mayfield, Esq.

Matthew Vasquez, Esq.

Howard Kaufer, Esq.

 Trial Attorneys

 DLA Energy

 Fort Belvoir, VA

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The appeal has been withdrawn. Accordingly, it is dismissed from the Board’s 

docket with prejudice.

Dated: April 6, 2021

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals
2

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62603, Appeal of Independent 

Marine Oil Services LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: April 7, 2021 

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
<TABLE> <S> <C>





<ARTICLE> 5
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                            1658
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     5793
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     94,603
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                             521
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,372
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         60,516
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,270
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,313
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   107,372
<SALES>                                         40,743
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,407
<CGS>                                           34,642
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,033
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   338
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 553
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    374
<INCOME-TAX>                                        52
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    170
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       492
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99(b)

                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 Beard  Company's (the  "Company")  Annual Report on Form
10-K for the period ended  December 31, 2002, as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I, Herb  Mee,  Jr.,
President and Chief  Financial  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, to the best of my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


                                       HERB MEE, JR.
Date:  April 8, 2003               By: Herb Mee, Jr.
                                       President and Chief Financial Officer
#### David E. K. FRISCHKORN, Petitioner, v. Thomasine G. FRISCHKORN, Respondent.

No. 38793.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 17, 1969.

Earl Waldin, Jr., of Smathers & Thompson, Miami, for petitioner.

Eugene C. Heiman of Heiman & Crary, Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ -and have heard argu*910ment of the parties. After argument and 'upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the writ was improvidently issued. Therefore, the writ is hereby discharged and the petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed.

The Motion for Attorney’s Fees is hereby granted in the amount of $350.00.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., DREW, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., and MANN, District Court Judge, concur.
#### STATE ex rel. Melvin JACKSON, and the Culmer Neighborhood Committee #3 of the Neighborhood Development Program, an unincorporated association, Appellants, v. The SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a Virginia corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-660.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 10, 1972.

*89Alfred Feinberg, Miami, and William Aaron, Legal Intern, for appellants.

Bolles, Goodwin, Ryskamp & Ware, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

CARROLL, Judge.

Proceeding in the name of the state, an individual and two unincorporated organizations filed an action under § 60.05 Fla. Stat., F.S.A. to abate a public nuisance. The action was against The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company. Thereby the plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring to be a public nuisance the operation of trains by the defendant between certain hours (8:00 P.M. to 4:00 A.M.) on Northwest Eleventh Terrace from Northwest First Avenue to Northwest Seventh Avenue in the city of Miami. The grounds alleged were noise; danger to vehicles, pedestrians and (attracted) children ; improperly maintained track and roadbed; and absence of adequate warning devices at street intersections.

On motion of the plaintiffs, one of them, The Culmer Area Advisory Board, was dropped as a plaintiff in the cause. On motion of defendants an order was entered dismissing the complaint with leave to amend. An amended complaint was filed. It added allegations of fact relating to the matters set out in the original complaint as constituting a public nuisance. The defendants moved to dismiss. The motion was granted, and the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed this appeal therefrom.

Upon consideration of the arguments of the appellants, in the light of the record and briefs, we affirm the judgment of dismissal. It would appear that the remedy, if any, for the matters complained of, would be through control of the railroad operation to be exercised by the Florida Public Service Commission under Chapter 350 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. We hold, however, that the dismissal of the complaint should not have been with prejudice.

Accordingly, the judgment of dismissal is modified to be without prejudice, and as so modified is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 12(b)

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
COMPUTATION OF RATIOS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
											       Three Months Ended
												 March 31, 1999   
											     (Millions of Dollars)


RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
<S>                                                                                                 <C>
Earnings, as defined:
  Net income ..............................................................................         $ 108 
  Income taxes ............................................................................            55 
  Fixed charges, as below .................................................................            46 

    Total earnings, as defined ............................................................         $ 209 

Fixed charges, as defined:
  Interest charges ........................................................................         $  43 
  Rental interest factor ..................................................................             1 
  Fixed charges included in nuclear fuel cost .............................................             2 

    Total fixed charges, as defined .......................................................         $  46 

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges ........................................................          4.54




RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS

Earnings, as defined:
  Net income ..............................................................................          $108 
  Income taxes ............................................................................            55 
  Fixed charges, as below .................................................................            46 

    Total earnings, as defined ............................................................         $ 209 

Fixed charges, as defined:
  Interest charges ........................................................................         $  43 
  Rental interest factor ..................................................................             1 
  Fixed charges included in nuclear fuel cost .............................................             2 

    Total fixed charges, as defined .......................................................            46 

Non-tax deductible preferred stock dividends ..............................................             4 
Ratio of income before income taxes to net income .........................................          1.51 

Preferred stock dividends before income taxes .............................................             6 

Combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends ......................................         $  52 

Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends .................          4.02 
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, L. Stephen Smith, Chief Executive Officer of The PMI Group, Inc. (Company), hereby certify that
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: March 16, 2009 |  |  |  | /S/    L. STEPHEN SMITH
|                      |  |  |  | L. Stephen Smith       
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.