alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**I, Kimberly A. Springsteen, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund II (theregistrant); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor 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 the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis 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) and15d-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, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; 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(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        **Date:**April 2, 2007 */s/*Kimberly A. Springsteen   Kimberly A. Springsteen   Chief Executive Officer   
25
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,558
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  153,422
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,939
<INVENTORY>                                    171,762
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               341,327
<PP&E>                                          63,405
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,358
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 402,326
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          170,907
<BONDS>                                         50,555
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           165
<OTHER-SE>                                     177,964
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   402,326
<SALES>                                        696,282
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               696,282
<CGS>                                          641,856
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  676,993
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,262
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,027
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,793
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,234
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,234
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .45


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR
                     RULE 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  annual  report  of  HyperDynamics  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB Amendment No. 1 for the period ended June 30, 2004 as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I,  Kent  P. Watts, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  Sec.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.

Date: May 9, 2005                   By:     /s/ Kent P. Watts
                                            -----------------
                                                     Kent P. Watts
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
#### Estate of James Donnelly, Deceased.

Argued May 4, 1934.

Before Tkexler, P. J., Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*280
      *Thomas E. Whitten,*Assistant County Solicitor, and with him *J. P. Fife,*County Solicitor, and *John E. 'Lduer,*for appellant.

*George E. Alter,*and with him A., *C. Teplitz, Arthur M. Scully*and *Edwin W. Smith,*for appellees.

July 13, 1934:

Pee Cueiam,

The decree is affirmed on the opinion of Trimble, President Judge of the orphans’ court. The appellant is to pay the costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.4

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Thomas J. McDonald, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of SkillSoft Public
      Limited Company;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3.    Omitted;

4     Omitted;

5.    Omitted; and

6.    Omitted.

Dated: May 27, 2004                         /s/ Thomas J. McDonald
                                            ----------------------
                                            Thomas J. McDonald
                                            Chief Financial Officer
#### B & P RESTAURANT CORP., d/b/a Manny’s Restaurant, etc., and Consolidated Mutual Insurance Co., etc., et al., Petitioners, v. PEOPLES GAS SYSTEM, INC., etc., Respondent.

No. 43449.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 6, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 271 So.2d 804.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Mrs. A. L. BRIDGERS, Appellant, v. CITY OF CASSELBERRY, Appellee.

No. 72-1028.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 7, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
[No. 360-3.

Division Three.

December 22, 1971.]

#### Shinn Irrigation Equipment, Inc., *Appellant,*v. Marion C. Moore *et al., Respondents.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                 INFORMATIONAL ADDENDUM TO REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

           NOT FILED PURSUANT TO THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

     The undersigned chief executive officer and chief financial officer of
Friedman Industries, Incorporated do hereby certify as follows:

     Solely for the purpose of meeting the apparent requirements of Section 906
     of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely to the extent this
     certification may be applicable to this Report on Form 10-Q, the
     undersigned hereby certify that this Report on Form 10-Q fully complies
     with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
     Act of 1934 and the information contained in this Report on Form 10-Q
     fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
     results of operations of Friedman Industries, Incorporated.

                                          /s/  JACK FRIEDMAN
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name: Jack Friedman
                                          Title: Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                                 Executive Officer

                                          /s/  BEN HARPER
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name: Ben Harper
                                          Title: Senior Vice President-Finance
                                                 and Secretary/Treasurer
Exhibit 4.2

 

RLX TECHNOLOGY INC.

 

	
Number
    	
 
    	
Class A   Ordinary Shares
    


 

Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands

 

Share capital is US$150,000 divided into 15,000,000,000 shares comprising of 
 (i) 12,000,000,000 Class A Ordinary Shares of a par value of US$0.00001 each 
 (ii) 1,500,000,000 Class B Ordinary Shares of a par value of US$0.00001 each and 
 (iii) 1,500,000,000 shares of a par value of US$0.00001 each of such class or classes (however designated) 
 as the board of directors may determine in accordance with Article 9 of the Articles

 

 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT                                                                        is the registered holder of                                                    Class A Ordinary Shares in the above-named Company subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association thereof.

 

 

EXECUTED on behalf of the said Company on the                          day of                                               by:

 

 

 

	
DIRECTOR
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RASHEEM JAMES DRUMMOND,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 761 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of June, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Sam CAPITANO, Jr., d/b/a El-Cap Construction Company v. HUBER, HUNT & NICHOLS, INC., and Blount Brothers Corporation (A Joint Venture) and Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District.

No. 62663.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc., and Blount Brothers Corporation, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied. The result is correct.

CALOGERO, J., Recused.
#### JAMES B. COLLINS *vs.*JAMES STEEL.

Sale of land set aside for want of notice of inquisition.

Vend, exponas to the October term, 1847, Kent county. Sheriff returns “ land sold to Peter F. Caussey for $325; and sufficient.”

The inquisition was held in this case on a rule in vacation since last term, and the land condemned; upon which this writ issued, and the land was sold.

The defendant, at this term, filed an affidavit that he was, and had been, for many years past, a resident of Kent county; and that he had no notice or knowledge of the holding the inquisition, or of the sale of his property until after the sale; upon which

*Bates, jr.,*

had a rule to.show cause why the inquisition and sale should not be set aside; and, on the hearing, the affidavit being sustained:—

Rule absolute.
#### H. C. COON et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF OKALOOSA COUNTY, Florida, and on Behalf of South Okaloosa High School Special Tax District, Appellee.

No. 36137.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 19, 1967.

Campbell & Rice, Crestview, for appellants.

*77Erwin Fleet of Estergren, Fleet & Fortune, Fort Walton Beach, and G. Warren Sanchez and Benjamin H. Dickens, of Sanchez & Dickens, Tallahassee, for appellee.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

In an opinion filed May 31, 1967, we reversed the decree validating certain bonds purportedly authorized by an election. By petition for rehearing appellee has brought to our attention the enactment of House Bill 3296, Florida Legislature, which became law July 10, 1967, and which, it is insisted, constitutes valid curative legislation which remedies the defects which necessitated our reversal of the Chancellor’s decree.

By the petition for rehearing *yve*are requested to advance the disposition of the cause, take judicial notice of the statute aforesaid and confirm the decree of the lower court which validated the bonds in question.

We grant the motion to advance, We notice the statute above referred to and decline, at this level and time, tq adjudicate its sufficiency.

Our opinion of May 31, 1967 is withdrawn and the cause remanded to the trial court for reconsideration and redetermination in the light of the cited legislation, which was enacted while the cause was pending here. The trial judge is authorized to allow such amended pleadings and t^ke such further proceedings as may appear appropriate in the premises.1

It is so ordered.

O’CONNELL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

1

. State v. Hospital District of Hardee County, Opinion on Rehearing filed July 14, 1967, 201 So.2d 69 and eases there cited.
#### James David EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WESTERN & ATLANTIC RAILROAD, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 75-2850.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 13, 1977.

Rehearing Denied June 24,1977.

*138T. J. Lewis, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant.

Hugh M. Dorsey, Jr., Richard M. Kirby, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellee.

Before MORGAN and FAY, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER,* District Judge.

*

 Senior District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff James David Edwards, a railroad switchman, sued his employer, defendant Western & Atlantic Railroad, under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51*et seq.*Plaintiff alleged that the railroad’s negligence in maintaining a path next to some railroad tracks had caused injury to his ankle when he climbed off a train to throw a switch and stepped on a rock.

The railroad denied liability on the ground, inter alia, that plaintiff had accepted a settlement from the railroad and had executed an instrument releasing the railroad from further liability for the injury. Plaintiff sought to avoid the release on the ground that the parties had executed it under a mutual mistake as to the nature and severity of the injury.

After discovery, the railroad moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion in a written order, holding that there was no disputed issue of material fact and that as a matter of law there was no mutual mistake. Record at 97-102. Plaintiff appeals.

Upon careful examination of the record, we affirm. The undisputed facts show, at most, a mistake as to the expected course of healing of plaintiff’s injury, and not as to its nature. Such a mistake is not sufficient to avoid the release. *See Robertson*v. *Douglas Steamship Co.,*510 F.2d 829, 836 (5th Cir. 1975); *Heston v. Chicago and North Western R. Co.,*341 F.Supp. 126 (N.D.Ill.1972).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

 <ARTICLE>                 5                      
 <MULTIPLIER>           1000                      
                                   
 <S>                <C>                          <C>  
 <PERIOD-TYPE>      6-MOS                        3-MOS
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>            FEB-28-1997                FEB-28-1997 
 <PERIOD-START>                MAR-1-1996                 JUN-2-1996
 <PERIOD-END>                 AUG-31-1996                AUG-31-1996   
 <CASH>                              1963                       1963
 <SECURITIES>                           0                          0
 <RECEIVABLES>                       3723                       3723
 <ALLOWANCES>                          51                         51
 <INVENTORY>                         7109                       7109
 <CURRENT-ASSETS>                     863                        863
 <PP&E>                             13916                      13916
 <DEPRECIATION>                      7702                       7702
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                     20873                      20873
 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               4037                       4037
 <BONDS>                                0                          0
 <COMMON>                              17                         17 
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0                          0
 <PREFERRED>                            0                          0
 <OTHER-SE>                         13980                      13980
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       20873                      20873
 <SALES>                            11498                       5996
 <TOTAL-REVENUES>                   11498                       5996
 <CGS>                               8480                       4807
 <TOTAL-COSTS>                       3540                       1839
 <OTHER-EXPENSES>                       6                         (2)
 <LOSS-PROVISION>                       0                          0
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   105                         56
 <INCOME-PRETAX>                     (634)                      (704)
 <INCOME-TAX>                           0                        (15)
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>                    0                          0
 <DISCONTINUED>                         0                          0
 <EXTRAORDINARY>                        0                          0
 <CHANGES>                              0                          0
 <NET-INCOME>                        (634)                      (689)
 <EPS-PRIMARY>                      (0.53)                     (0.57)
 <EPS-DILUTED>                      (0.53)                     (0.57)
JACKET: 571-930

TITLE: CBP Seized Property Tape - Tan & Red

AGENCY: DHS/CBP

ABSTRACT FOR FORMAL JACKET 571-930

CONTRACTOR PRICE DISCOUNT DISCOUNTED PRICE

I.R. Industries $114,568.95 1% - 20 DAYS $113,423.26

The Peavey Corporation $126,336.00 Net - 30 Days $126,336.00

NovaVision $182,784.00 Net - 30 Days4.77% - 20 days $182,784.00

AWARDED TO: I.R. INDUSTRIES
#### WESLEY W. STEPHENSON, Constable, defendant below appellant *vs.*WM. NEWCOMB, Constable, use of JOHN RODNEY, plaintiff below.

Assumpsit will lie by one constable against another having execution process against the same defendants for goods sold by the latter, where the former is entitled to the proceeds.

The regularity of the judgments cannot be collaterally inquired into.

Appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace in Sussex county.

Rodney obtained a judgment by attachment process against Joshua Lamb, and issued execution to William Newcomb, constable, who levied on the goods of Lamb, and attached a debt in the hands of one of Lamb’s creditors. The proceeding on the attachment against Lamb was very irregular on the face of the record. It was against him as an absconding debtor, and judgment was rendered by the magistrate, without the report of referees, the demand being above $5 33. The notices were defective, none having been posted in the hundred of the defendant’s place of abode. *[Digest*349.] . The judgment, which could only be rendered at the expiration of five weeks after the return of the attachment, was rendered on the *day of the return of the attachment.*Before the five weeks would have expired, other judgments were regularly obtained against Lamb, executions issued and delivered to the defendant below, who was the constable, and who seized and sold the goods attached by Mr. Rodney. The question was between the execution and the attaching creditors.

*Mr. Layton*moved a nonsuit for the irregularity of the proceedings in the attachment, which was refused.

*151
      *The*Court.

We cannot inquire into the regularity of this judgment. It is the judgment of a competent tribunal coming collaterally in question, and is conclusive. If we can enter into these questions of irregularity in respect to Rodney’s judgment, we may also re-try those under which the defendant claims the proceeds of the goods attached or sold on execution, and thus run this case into inextricable confusion.

We do not point out a remedy. If there be none, it is a defect which the legislature onght to cure; but whilst the judgment stands unreversed, we must take it to be a valid judgment. If there be an exception, it is because of fraud in obtaining a judgment..

*Mr. Layton*afterwards made the point that there was not such a privity as would enable Constable jNewcome to sue Constable Stephenson. [4 *Harr. Rep.*178. 468, overruling Ross *vs.*Jacobs, 2 *Harr. Rep.*445.] In this case the Court of Appeals decided that the judgment or execution creditor can sue the constable selling, or receiving the money; it follows that the other constable cannot have this right of action, for both cannot have it.

*Mr.*Cullen.—Assumpsit will lie by one constable against another, for goods sold by the latter, when the former is entitled to the proceeds. [2 *Harr. Rep.*445; 3 *Ib.*446; 4 *Ib.*178, 468; 12 *Johns. Rep.*227; 7 *Johns. Rep.*470; 9 *Johns. Rep.*96; 1 *Wend. Rep.*534; *Chitty Const.*461-2; 7 *Law. Lib.*146.]

The plaintiff had a verdict under the charge of the court.