alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 12.2**

I, Stefan Johnsson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of AB Volvo (publ);

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 report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The company’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 company and have:

- 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 company, 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;  evaluated the effectiveness of the company’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; anddisclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
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 company’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 company’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: June 18, 2004/s/ Stefan Johnsson 				Name: Stefan Johnsson				Title: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
252 La. 117

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Edgar L. COLEMAN.

No. 49210.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 19, 1968.

In re: Edgar L. Coleman applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writs refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
#### Percy L. PARMENTER, Appellant, v. E. H. DOWLING and Nan J. Dowling, Appellees.

No. 70-768.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 3, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SUMMIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. DATED MARCH
31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       6,959,785
<SECURITIES>                                17,940,336
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,106,280
<ALLOWANCES>                                    87,878
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            26,123,285
<PP&E>                                       1,292,819
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,601,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,489,847
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,058
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,079,996
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,601,901
<SALES>                                      1,302,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,302,625
<CGS>                                          725,914
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  778,425
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                156,757
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            156,757
<DISCONTINUED>                              (2,175,118)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,018,361)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.62)


</TABLE>
#### Izar LAWSON and Reto Lawson, etc., Petitioners, v. Elizabeth SWIRN, Respondent.

No. 42269.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 30, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 258 So.2d 458.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ„ concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FIRST AMERICAN CLOCK CO. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             554
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     38,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,504
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,791
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,775
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           908
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,108
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,791
<SALES>                                          5,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,500
<CGS>                                            4,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,671
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,671)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,671)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,671)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1046 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1046

To clarify certain provisions of the Native American Veterans' Memorial 
                       Establishment Act of 1994.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2013

  Mr. Schatz (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Tester, and Ms. Hirono) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                      Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify certain provisions of the Native American Veterans' Memorial 
                       Establishment Act of 1994.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Native American Veterans' Memorial 
Amendments Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. NATIVE AMERICAN VETERANS' MEMORIAL.

    (a) Authority To Establish Memorial.--Section 3 of the Native 
American Veterans' Memorial Establishment Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 80q-5 
note; 108 Stat. 4067) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``within the interior 
        structure of the facility'' and inserting ``on the property''; 
        and
            (2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``, in consultation 
        with the Museum, is'' and inserting ``and the National Museum 
        of the American Indian are''.
    (b) Payment of Expenses.--Section 4(a) of the Native American 
Veterans' Memorial Establishment Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 80q-5 note; 108 
Stat. 4067) is amended--
            (1) in the heading, by inserting ``and National Museum of 
        the American Indian '' after ``American Indians ''; and
            (2) in the first sentence, by striking ``shall be solely'' 
        and inserting ``and the National Museum of the American Indian 
        shall be''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Diedrich Coffee, Inc. (the Company),
for purposes of 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:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 8, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                                          
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------
|                      |  | 
|Dated: April 21, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Stephen V. Coffey                    
|                      |  |  |  | Stephen V. Coffey Chief Executive
Officer

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Diedrich
Coffee, Inc. and will be retained by Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
254 La. 121

#### William P. McALLISTER v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 49862.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 5, 1969.

In re: William P. McAllister applying for writ of habeas corpus.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Andrew G. Búcaro, Judge of the Second Municipal Court for the Parish of Orleans, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 13th day of October, 1969, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through its attorneys shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.

It is further ordered that in the meantime and until the further orders of this court all proceedings against the relator in said Second Municipal Court shall be stayed and suspended.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph SEARS.

No. 53676.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 1973.

In re: Joseph Sears applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and stay order.

Application is denied. Petitioner has an adequate opportunity for review after sentencing.
Exhibit No. 31.2



CERTIFICATION

I, Jay Zager, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Gerber Scientific, Inc.;

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 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 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 quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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(s)):

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 control over financial reporting.

Date:  March 10, 2005

| | /s/ Jay Zager                         | 
| | ------------------------------------- | 
| | Jay Zager   
 Chief Financial Officer |
#### FLEET TRANSPORT COMPANY, INC. and Redwing Carriers, Inc., Petitioners, v. William H. BEVIS et al., Respondents.

No. 44359.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 19, 1974.

Certiorari denied.

ADKINS, C. J., ROBERTS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., and SPECTOR, District Court of Appeal Judge, concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Diedrich Coffee, Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 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:



| |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 22, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |                                      
|------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: November 10, 2004 |  | /s/ Roger M. Laverty                 
|                         |  | Roger M. Laverty                     
|                         |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



Note: A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and will be retained by Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Bobby R. CHURCH v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO.

No. 8170.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Dec. 21, 1970.

*647L. A. Picou, Jr., St. Francisville, for appellant.

Horace C. Lane, Baton Rouge, for ap-pellee.

Before LANDRY, ELLIS and BLANCHE, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge:

This is an action for damages for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff Bobby R. Church while riding as a guest passenger in an automobile owned and operated by Rodney L. Guillory, the insured of defendant Allstate Insurance Company. The accident happened when Guillory’s automobile left the highway and went into a fence, causing the injuries suffered by plaintiff. Allstate has interposed the defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negligence, based on Guillory’s alleged intoxication and operating the vehicle at an excessive rate of speed. From a judgment rejecting plaintiff’s demands, he has appealed.

Plaintiff and Guillory met at about 4:30 p.m. one afternoon, and except for a period during which they had supper, were drinking beer together at a nightclub until shortly before the accident, which happened at 2:30 a.m. on the following morning. Plaintiff testified that he drank between four and six beers during the period between 8:00 p.m. and 2:15 a.m., and that Guillory had two less than he did. Guillo-ry admitted to drinking six beers during that time.

They had left the nightclub and were on their way to West Baton Rouge Parish, when the accident happened. Guillory testified that he was going 80 or 90 miles an hour, and that he was unable to negotiate a curve. Plaintiff testified that he noticed nothing unusual about the way that Guillo-ry was driving, stating that the speed seemed about 65 or 70 miles per hour to him.

The trooper who investigated the accident smelled alcohol on Guillory’s breath, and noted him to be bleary eyed and messed up. He did not charge Guillory with driving while intoxicated because he felt that his appearance could be attributed to the lateness of the hour as well as to the alcohol.

The law in cases such as this is well settled. If the driver of a vehicle is shown to be intoxicated, and the intoxication is shown to be a contributing cause of the accident, and if a guest passenger knows or should know that the driver’s faculties are materially impaired because of his intoxication, the passenger is said to have assumed the risk, and is also guilty of contributory negligence sufficient to bar his recovery. Walker v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, 199 So.2d 39 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1967).

The trial court found that Guillo-ry’s faculties were materially impaired from drinking and that plaintiff should have known it. He also found that Guillo-ry was driving at an excessive rate of speed and that plaintiff should have known it and should have admonished him. He felt that plaintiff had assumed the risk of *648injury on both counts and could not, therefore, recover. We believe his conclusion in this respect to be fully supported by both the law and the evidence.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, at plaintiff’s cost.

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 15, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 15, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15I0236. STEVE MARION v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

12CR1028