alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32-1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of The Goldfield Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John H. Sottile,
Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Goldfield Corporation and will be retained by The Goldfield Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/ JOHN H. SOTTILEJohn H. SottileChairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)May 13, 2008




25
Document

Exhibit 10.30
						
	
	Amendment No. 2 to Underwriting Agreement between
North American Title Insurance Company
and Lennar Title, Inc.




			
	


Whereas, North American Title Insurance Company, a California corporation ("North American") and, Lennar Title, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("Title Agency") made and entered into an Underwriting Agreement, dated August 7, 2020 ("Agreement"); and
Whereas, North American and Title Agency desire to amend the Agreement.
Now therefore, for good and valuable consideration, North American and Title Agency agree to modify and amend the Agreement, effective      11/7/2020        (the “Effective Date”), as follows:
1.As to Exhibit No. 15, Section 1 (Territory): addition of the following Texas counties: Atascosa.
The provisions of this Amendment shall control over any conflicting or inconsistent provisions set forth in the Agreement. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect other than as modified herein. All capitalized words and phrases contained in this Amendment shall have the same meaning as is assigned to them in the Agreement unless a new meaning is assigned in this Amendment.
This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, which, when assembled, will be deemed to be an original copy of this Amendment and all of which, when taken together, will be deemed to constitute one and the same agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly and properly executed by their respective officers having full authority to do so, to be effective as of the Effective Date.
						
	LENNAR TITLE, INC.
	By:	/s/ Cristina Pardo
		Cristina Pardo
	Its:	Executive Vice President


						
	NORTH AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
	By:	/s/ Emilio Fernandez
		Emilio Fernandez
	Its:	President


			
	NATIC AGENCY ADMIN ONLY
	System records updated on:
1/6/2021

	By:
/s/ Beatrix Ciprian



Page 1 of 1
#### H. J. NICHOLS v. George NICHOLS.

No. 38843.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 223 So.2d 763.
#### J. C. SMITH, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. Q-177.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 9, 1972.

J. C. Smith, Jr., in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William E. Whitlock III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Series Id:

Series title:

Labor force status:

Type of data:

Age:

Years:

Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Annual

2011 1312

Unemployed

Number in thousands

40 to 44 years

2011 to 2011

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Original Data Value

LNU03024935Q

Not Seasonally Adjusted

(Unadj) Unemployment Level - 40-44 yrs.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:09:07 PM)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10155 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. BALTAZAR DE LOS SANTOS-RAMIREZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:07-CR-73-ALL Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Baltazar De Los Santos-Ramirez (De Los Santos) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with A nders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). De Los Santos has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s briefdiscloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 19, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
258 La. 701

#### John G. SCHWEGMANN, and Parey P. Branton v. Honorable Mary Evelyn PARKER, Chairman, and the Louisiana State Bond Commission.

No. 51431.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 1971.

In re: Honorable Mary Evelyn Parker, Chairman, and The Louisiana State Bond Commission applying for writs of certiorari or review.-

Writ granted without argument.

See cases Nos. 51,412, Abbott v. Parker, 259 La. —, 249 So.2d 908; 51,413, Branton v. State Bond and Tax Board, 259 La. -, 249 So.2d 920; and 51,414, Schwegmann v. Parker, 259 La. —, 249 So.2d 921. The present proceeding is consolidated with those.
#### Julius Bernard WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. H-392.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 20, 1970.

Joseph Q. Tarbuck, Pensacola, for petitioner.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We here consider a “Hollingshead” petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to an order of the Florida Supreme Court in Williams v. Wainwright, 217 So.2d 317 (Fla.1969), wherein that Court found that Petitioner had been thwarted in his right of direct appeal from a judgment of conviction of robbery and breaking and entering.

This Court has meticulously examined the record in this cause, including the transcript of the trial proceedings. The overwhelming testimony reflects that on May 21, 1965, in the early hours of the morning, Petitioner Williams and others attacked, robbed and beat their victim, who was lured outside a bar by a female companion. The victim was robbed of some $200 and his motel key. Petitioner and his cohorts then proceeded to the motel, used the stolen key, and ransacked the victim’s room. The female companion (who was staying with Petitioner at his home during this period) testified as to the events which transpired. The victim positively identified Petitioner as one of the perpetrators of the robbery, and other testimony by a bartender corroborated the State’s case. In short, this record reveals without question the guilt of Petitioner.

The Special Assistant Public Defender appointed by this Court pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court in Williams v. Wainwright, supra, has sought to present *503valid points in this full appellate review of Petitioner’s conviction, and is commended for his diligent efforts. However, after reviewing the record in this case and the points presented, this Court is of the opinion that none of the assignments of error presented by the Special' Assistant Public Defender have merit.

Full appellate review having been given to the Petitioner, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ricardo Bernardes, certify that:

1. I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of California Steel Industries, Inc. (the Registrant);

2. Based on my knowledge,
this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual
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 report;

4. The Registrants other certifying officer 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)) for the Registrant and we 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 subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this 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 end of the period covered by this 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 year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. 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 Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls 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: March 28, 2007



By:

/s/ Ricardo BernardesRicardo Bernardes,Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Sharon E. Klos, Appellant, v Town of Babylon et al., Respondents.

[655 NYS2d 414]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Town of Babylon dated January 17, 1992, abolishing the petitioner’s position as senior building inspector and to compel the Town of Babylon to reinstate her to that position with back pay, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), entered February 26, 1996, which denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well established that a public employer may abolish civil service positions for the purposes of economy or efficiency *(see, Matter of Rosenthal v Gilroy,*208 AD2d 748, 749; *Matter of Della Vecchia v Town of N. Hempstead,*207 AD2d 484, 485; *Matter of Bianco v Pitts,*200 AD2d 741; *Matter of Aldazabal v Carey,*44 NY2d 787; *Matter of Wipfler v Klebes,*284 NY 248). A public employer, however, may not abolish a job position as a subterfuge to avoid statutory protection afforded to civil servants *(see, Matter of Rosenthal v Gilroy, supra,*citing *Wood v City of New York,*274 NY 155; *Matter of Della Vecchia v Town of N. Hempstead, supra; Matter of Bianco v Pitts, supra).*It is also well settled that the one who challenges the validity of such an act has the burden of proving that the employer did not act in good faith in abolishing the position *(see, Matter of Rosenthal v Gilroy, supra; Matter of Della Vecchia v Town of N. Hempstead, supra; Matter of Bianco v Pitts, supra; Matter of Crow v Ambach,*96 AD2d 642; *Matter of Connolly v Carey,*80 AD2d 936). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioner had failed to sustain her burden of proving that her position was abolished in bad faith *(see, Matter of Della Vecchia v Town of N. Hempstead, supra; Matter of Bianco v Pitts, supra*[where record indicated that abolition of petitioner’s position was result of Town reorganization plan, Supreme Court properly concluded abolishment of position was for economic reasons and not any improper motive such as political patronage]; *Matter of O’Donnell v Kirby,*112 AD2d 936; Annotation, *Determination as to Good Faith in Abolition of Public Office or Employment Subject to Civil Service or Merit System,*87 ALR3d 1165). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HABERSHAM BANCORP FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      13,067,675
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            16,740,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 33,224,423
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      11,404,780
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        11,606,286
<LOANS>                                    235,722,448
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,336,079
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             328,197,085
<DEPOSITS>                                 261,664,999
<SHORT-TERM>                                28,029,372
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          8,358,375
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,408,517
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,735,822
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             328,197,085
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             23,743,448
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,811,752
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               406,956
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            26,962,156
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          11,036,973
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          13,305,166
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       13,656,990
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  422,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (12,972)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             18,411,773
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,879,479
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,879,479
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,157,276
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .86
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.74
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,251,157
<LOANS-PAST>                                 1,282,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               913,753
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,261,406
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  547,610
<RECOVERIES>                                   200,283
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,336,079
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,336,079
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
[No. 906-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

January 10, 1972.]

#### Durwood Manufacturing, Inc., *Respondent,*v. Marcus B. Metzger *et al., Defendants,*Hugh P. Boyle *et al., Appellants.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CELERIS CORPORATION DATED JUNE 30, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       7,343,121
<SECURITIES>                                 3,037,016
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,281,994
<ALLOWANCES>                                   250,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,063,880
<PP&E>                                       1,283,384
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,347,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,117,226
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,823
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,199,215
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,347,264
<SALES>                                      4,331,591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,331,591
<CGS>                                        3,017,078
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,858,306
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,234,940)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,234,940)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 400,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,834,940)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.58)


</TABLE>
#### Porter W. HOMER, as County Manager, Tax Assessor and Tax Collector of Dade County, Florida, et al., Appellants, v. PALM CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 70-469.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 19, 1972.

Stuart L. Simon, County Atty., and Gary S. Brooks, Asst. County Atty., for appellants.

Pallot, Silver, Pallot, Stern, Proby & Adkins, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was issued on February 9, 1971 (243 So.2d 641) reversing the final judgment of the circuit court of Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed April 26, 1972 (261 So.2d 822) and mandate now lodged in this court quashed this court’s judgment with directions to reinstate the final judgment of the trial court;

Now, therefore, it is ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on February 25, 1971 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court filed February 9, 1971 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, and the final judgment of the circuit court ap*121pealed from herein is reinstated and affirmed. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the circuit court (Rule 3.16, subd. b, F.A. R., 32 F.S.A.).
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Mary G. Merritt, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Preferred Voice, Inc.;



2. 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;



3. 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.



4. 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and



c. presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):



a. all significant deficiencies in the design or
operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant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; and



6. The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly 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 our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Mary G. Merritt          
|Mary G. Merritt              
|Vice President Finance       
|(Principal Financial Officer)
|August 16, 2004