alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2**
I, Ben Harper, Senior Vice President-Finance andSecretary/Treasurer of Friedman Industries, Incorporated, aTexas corporation, certify that:
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Friedman Industries, Incorporated;
     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;

     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, result of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

     The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

b) [intentionally omitted per SEC release 33-8238]

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

     The registrant's other certifying officers(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant's board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Dated: August 14, 2003 /s/  BEN HARPER Senior Vice President-Finance and Secretary/Treasurer
---

CONSENT OF AUTHOR

****

****

Ronald Joe Scheurenberg Knight Piesold (Pty) Ltd TC
Watermeyer Centre Cnr Rivonia Boulevard and 10thAvenue
Rivonia, 2128 South Africa

Email: ronnies@kprsa.ca.za

US Securities and Exchange Commission



I, Ronald Joe Scheurenberg., Pr.Eng, certify that I have read
the written disclosure being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that
there are any misrepresentations in the information derived from the Technical
Report or that the written disclosure in the Form 40F of Great Basin Gold Ltd.
contains any misrepresentation of the information contained in Technical Report
Burnstone Gold Project Pre-feasibility Study Area 1 Executive Summary dated
November 2004.

I do hereby consent to the filing with the regulatory
authorities.

Dated this 30th day of March, 2006.



/s/ R.J. Scheurenberg

|Name    | R.J.
      Scheurenberg 
|------- | ------------------------
|Company | Knight Piesold (Pty) Ltd

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



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 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Quarterly Report of Frischs Restaurants, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 6, 2005 (the
Report), the undersigned officer of the Registrant certifies, 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 his knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |     |  |                        
|-------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|April 15, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Craig F. Maier     
|               |  |     |  | Craig F. Maier         
|               |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6351

JERRY L. HARRELSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-96-174-R)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 2, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry L. Harrelson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Harrelson

v. Angelone, No. CA-96-174-R (W.D. Va. Feb. 26, 1996). 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
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

FIRST HARTFORD CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of First Hartford Corporation (the "Company")on Form 10-Q the quarter ending October 31, 2005 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Stuart I.Greenwald, Treasurer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.       Thereport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

                   /s/ Stuart I. Greenwald                   Stuart I. GreenwaldTreasurer & Chief Financial Officer

Date:  December 15, 2005
#### Kathryn CALHOUN, Petitioner, v. WORKMAN ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS, INC. and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 36688.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 8, 1967.

Maurice F. Sprinz, Sarasota, for petitioner.

Arthur D. Ginsburg, of Paderewski, Cramer, Robinson, Ginsburg & Ross, Sarasota, Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for respondents.

*4PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date of July 21, 1967.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

The petition is therefore denied.

CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, THORNAL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6969

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

KELLY GEORGE STANBACK,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, 

District Judge. (5:02-cr-30020-SGW-1)

Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 14, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelly George Stanback, Appellant Pro Se. Grayson A. Hoffman, Jeb 

Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorneys, Elizabeth G. 

Wright, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Harrisonburg, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kelly George Stanback appeals the district court’s order 

granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion.* We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Stanback, No. 5:02-cr-30020-SGW-1 (W.D. Va. filed June 

8 and entered June 9, 2015). 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

 * Although the district court granted Stanback’s § 3582 

motion, the reduction granted by the court did not reduce 

Stanback’s sentence to the full extent he requested.
EXHIBIT
      3.2(a)




AMENDMENT
      TO THE COMPANY’S BYLAWS




The
      Board
      of Directors adopted the following resolution at a meeting on February 27,
      2007
      to amend the Registrant’s Bylaws:




RESOLVED,
      the subsection entitled “QUORUM AND ACTION” of SECTION 4, entitled “MEETINGS” of
      ARTICLE II of the Company’s By-Laws, entitled “DIRECTORS” is amended by
      inserting in the first paragraph
      thereof a new, penultimate sentence as follows: In the case of any committee
      designated by the Board
      consisting of only two members, the presence of one member shall continue a
      quorum.
---

March 31, 2010

VIA EDGAR

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

|Re: | Great Basin Gold Ltd. (the "Company")
|--- | -------------------------------------
|    | Annual Report on Form 40-F           
|    | Consent of Expert                    

This letter is provided in connection with the Company's Form
40-F annual report for the year ended December 31, 2009, and any amendments
thereto, (the Annual Report) to be filed by the Company with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC). The Annual Report
incorporates by reference the Annual Information Form of the Company for the
year ended December 31, 2009.

On my own behalf and on behalf of S. Godden & Associates
Ltd. (the "SGA"), I hereby consent to the use of my name and SGAs name
in connection with reference to my and SGAs involvement in the preparation of
the following technical report (the "Technical Report"):

- Revised Technical Report on the June 2009 Update of the Mineral Resource
  Estimate for Hollister Gold Mine dated October 30, 2009.

and to references to the Technical Report, or portions thereof,
in the Annual Report and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of the
information derived from the Technical Report in the Annual Report.

I also consent to the use of my name and SGAs name in
connection with reference to my and SGAs involvement in the preparation of the
Technical Report and to references to the Technical Report, or portions thereof,
and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of the information derived
from the Technical Report in the Companys Form F-10 Registration Statements, as
amended, filed with the SEC under File No. 333-157767 and File No.
333-163021.

Yours truly,

S. Godden & Associates Ltd.

|/s/ Stephen J. Godden                   | 
|--------------------------------------- | 
|Stephen J. Godden., F.I.M.M.M., C. Eng. | 

---
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549



FORM 8-K



CURRENT REPORT



Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



Date of Report: (Date of earliest event reported)  November 19, 2007



THE BEARD COMPANY

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





Oklahoma
        001-12396
        73-0970298(State or other jurisdictionof incorporation)
        (CommissionFile Number)
        (IRS EmployerIdentification No.)






Enterprise Plaza

5600 N. May Avenue

Suite 320

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma73112

(Address of principal executive offices)             (Zip Code)



(405) 842-2333

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)



Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:



[   ]
        Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)




[   ]
        Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12(b))




[   ]
        Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))




[   ]
        Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




Page 1 of 2 Pages



---



Information to be Included in the Report:



Item 2.02Results of Operations and Financial Condition.



On November 19, 2007 we issued a press release announcing our financial results for the third quarter and nine months of 2007.  A copy of the press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1



Item 9.01Financial Statements and Exhibits.



(c)
        Exhibits.




The following exhibit is filed with this Form 8-K and is identified by the numbers indicated:



Exhibit No.
        Description




99.1
        Press Release dated November 19, 2007






SIGNATURES



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.



THE BEARD COMPANY




/s/ Herb Mee, Jr.


Herb Mee, Jr., President


November 20, 2007



EXHIBIT INDEX



Exhibit No.
        Description
        Method of Filing99.1
        Press Release dated November 19, 2007
        Filed herewith electronically






Page 2 of 2 Pages
#### Benjamin Alston et al., Appellants, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 97954.)

[722 NYS2d 85]

Crew *742III, J.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Collins, J.), entered April 12, 2000, which granted the State’s motion to dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In November 1991, claimant Benjamin Alston and 102 others similarly situated brought an action against the State in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 USC § 201*et seq.*[hereinafter FLSA]) seeking to recover for overtime allegedly worked during 1989 and 1990. In 1997, the District Court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the claim based upon the United States Supreme Court’s decision in *Seminole Tribe v Florida*(517 US 44), which held that the 11th Amendment deprives Federal courts of nonconsensual jurisdiction over FLSA claims against a state. In 1998, claimants brought the instant action in the Court of Claims, asserting the same causes of action and seeking the identical relief as had been sought in the Federal action. The State answered the claim, denied the material allegations and asserted, *inter alia,*that the Court of Claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction because of claimants’ failure to file the claim within six months of its accrual. Thereafter, the State successfully moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, prompting this appeal.

Initially, we reject claimants’ assertion that the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in *Alden v Maine*(527 US 706) did not serve to undermine the rationale for our holding in *Ahern v State of New York*(244 AD2d 7). As we recently have held, “the United States Supreme Court’s decision in *[Alden]*effectively overrules our prior decision in *[Ahern]” (Bergmann v State of New York,*281 AD2d 731, 732). *Alden*clearly holds that the Supremacy Clause does not confer authority upon Congress to abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity in its own courts without its consent *(Alden v Maine, supra,*at 732). Consequently, when New York waived its immunity subject to a six-month Statute of Limitations for FLSA claims brought against it *{see,*Court of Claims Act § 10 [4]), such limitation could not be overridden by the article I powers delegated to Congress, whereby a two or three-year Statute of Limitations was created for FLSA claims *(see, Alden v Maine, supra,*at 732-733). Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate claimants’ claim.

We further reject claimants’ contention that the State waived its defense based upon sovereign immunity in acknowledging claimants’ overtime eligibility. Failure to file a claim within *743the applicable six-month limitation period is a nonwaivable jurisdictional defect that deprives the Court of Claims of subject matter jurisdiction *(see,*Court of Claims Act § 10 [4]; *cf., Chapman v State of New York,*261 AD2d 814).

Cardona, P. J., Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
#### Wilkes-Barre Hotel Company, Appellant, *v.*Rust.

Argued March 6,1934.

Before Tkexler, P. J., *59Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*John A. Gallagher,*and with him *Frank P. Slattery,*for appellant.

*Mitchell Jenkins,*of *Jenkins, Turner & Jenkins,*for appellee.

April 16, 1934:

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff brought suit upon a contract of subscription for $1,000 of the Second Mortgage Bonds of the Wilkes-Barre Hotel Company. Defendant filed an affidavit of defense and a supplementary affidavit and the court, after a motion for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, refused to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff; hence the appeal. ■

The gist of the defense is that $560,000 was to be subscribed, and the amount subscribed was padded by subscriptions that were not bona fide, specifying them. That the campaign was never closed and the defendant withdrew his subscription in accordance to the privilege given under the terms of the subscription. There were other items of defense to which we need not refer.

The court below held that the matters involved could *60not ibe summarily disposed of on the pleadings, but were “for determination at trial.”

It does not clearly appear that the position taken by the court was error. The questions of law raised can best be determined after the facts are developed at the trial. An order discharging a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense will not be reversed except in such cases as are clear and free from doubt. Hardysh v. Yurkovsky, 108 Pa. Superior Ct. 546, 165 A. 533; Smith v. Brockway Motor Truck Co., 302 Pa. 217, 153 A. 333.

Order affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 655 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 655

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to make crop quality reduction 
disaster payments to producers of the 1992 crop of corn, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 1993

  Mr. Barcia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of Agriculture to make crop quality reduction 
disaster payments to producers of the 1992 crop of corn, 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. CROP QUALITY REDUCTION DISASTER PAYMENTS FOR 1992 CROP OF 
              CORN.

    The matter under the heading ``COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION'' under 
the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'' of chapter III of title I of 
Public Law 102-229 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note) is amended by inserting before 
the period at the end the following: ``: Provided further, That the 
Secretary of Agriculture shall make crop quality reduction disaster 
payments to producers of the 1992 crop of corn under the same terms and 
conditions as are specified in section 2245 of the Food, Agriculture, 
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note)''.

                                 <all>
```
#### Shirley STICKNEY, as Executrix of the Estate of David F. Stickney, Deceased, Petitioner, v. E. R. SQUIBB & SONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Respondent.

No. 43775.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 28, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 4, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 274 So.2d 898.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., dissent.