alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**** 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Steven M. Caspers, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative (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 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(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) 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) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

c) 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

 

d) 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and to the audit committee of our 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 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.

 

 

 

 

 

----
#### GROFF INDUSTRIES, INC., etc., Petitioner, v. RYDER TRUCK LINES, INC., etc., Respondent.

No. 42614.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 29, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 263 So.2d 599.

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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1457 

To exempt the aging process of distilled spirits from the production period 

for purposes of capitalization of interest costs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2013 

Mr. MCCONNELL (for himself and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To exempt the aging process of distilled spirits from the 

production period for purposes of capitalization of interest costs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Aged Distilled Spirits 

5 Competitiveness Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PRODUCTION PERIOD OF DISTILLED SPIRITS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 263A(f) of the Internal 

8 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

9 (1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as para10 graph (5), and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1457 IS

1 (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the fol2 lowing new paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(4) EXEMPTION FOR AGING PROCESS OF DIS4 TILLED SPIRITS.—For purposes of this subsection, 

5 the production period shall not include the aging pe6 riod for distilled spirits (as described in section 

7 5002(a)(8)).’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 this section shall apply to the production of distilled spirits 

10 that begins on or after the date of the enactment of this 

11 Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
DALE B. ADAMS,

v. JOHN DOE, etal., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) 

# FILED FEB- 52013 Clerk, U.S. District &**Bankruptc~** Courts for the District of Columbia

) Civil ActionNo. ) ) 

# 13 ) 

# 0157 Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the court onreview ofplaintiffs application to proceed in formapauperis andpro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint. The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Evenprose litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237,239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement ofthe grounds upon which the Court'sjurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand forjudgment for the reliefthe pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose ofthe minimum standard ofRule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants ofthe claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whetherthe doctrine ofresjudicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).


### 1 

# 3Plaintiffpurports to bring a civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), seeking a declaratoryjudgment, injunctive relief, and monetary damages. Compl. at 1. The defendant is identified only as "John Doe," id.**~** 5, and plaintiff"has no evidence ofwho harmed him," id.**~** 13. Plaintiff"has no evidence ofwhat a party did to him that he can present to the court," id.**~** 8, nor has evidence of when, where, why or how a party harmed him, see id.**~~** 9-12. Although plaintiff"can'tpresent his claims to the court," he asserts that "his complaint is viable as stated." Id.**~** 14. Not so. As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a). The pleading contains neither a statement regarding this Court'sjurisdictionnor a short and plain statement showing that plaintiffis entitled to relief. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

## DATE::(f7~4J/3

2
exhibit101-letter






MidWestOne  Financial Group, Inc.  -----------SM  (31 9) 356-5800  Fax: (319) 356-5849  I 02 South Clinton Street  Iowa City, IA 52240  September 27, 2022  Mr. Len D. Devaisher  c/o MidWestOne Financial Group, Inc.  102 South Clinton Street  Iowa City, Iowa 52240  Dear Len:  In recogmtion of your service as the Interim Chief Executive Officer ("Interim CEO") of  MidWestOne Financial Group, Inc. (the "Company") and MidWestOne Bank, the Compensation  Committee of the Company's Board of Directors has decided to revise the "Compensation and Benefits"  set forth in your Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated March 8, 2022 (the "Employment  Agreement") as follows:  (1) For the time period commencing August 12, 2022 through the last date on which you serve as Interim CEO, you will be entitled to an additional monthly stipend (pro rated for any partial month) in the amount of $7,041.67. For the avoidance of doubt, this monthly stipend shall be in addition to the Annual Base Salary described in Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement; but, except as set forth in item (2) below, shall not be considered to be part of your Annual Base Salary for purposes of the Employment Agreement. (2) With respect to your Incentive Bonus opportunity for the calendar year ending December 31, 2022, the Compensation Committee will apply the Incentive Bonus provisions of Section 3(b) of the Employment Agreement as if your "Annual Base Salary" was $495,000. For the avoidance of doubt, the Compensation Committee will calculate your 2022 Incentive Bonus using this deemed amount regardless of how long during 2022 you serve as Interim CEO. Except as set forth herein, the terms and conditions of your Employment Agreement will remain  unchanged.  Thank you for your commitment to the Company and MidWestOne Bank.  2246388.vl  Very truly yours,  MidWestOne Financial Group, Inc.  Tracy McCormick  Chair, Compensation Committee  www.midwestone.com  (800) 24 7-4418
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6614 DANIEL TEMPLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DANIEL R. DAY, in his individual capacity and official capacity, Defendant - Appellee. No. 00-6615 DANIEL TEMPLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OCONEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; KENNY WASHINGTON, Lieutenant with Oconee County Sheriff’s Department; DEAN HALL, Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-3486-4-13BF, CA-00-598-4-13BF, CA-00-599-4-13BF)2 Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 25, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Temple, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Daniel Temple appeals the district court’s orders dismissingwithout prejudice his two civil rights complaints. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Temple v. Day, No. CA-99-3486-4-13BF (D.S.C. Apr. 6, 2000); Temple v. Oconee County Sheriff’s Dep’t , No. CA-00-598-4- 13BF (D.S.C. Apr. 21, 2000). 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
#### Mineral Railroad & Mining Company, Appellant, *v.*Northumberland County Commissioners.

*Taxation*— Real *estate*— Assessment—Reduction *of*assessment— *Appeals from hoard of revision.*

An appeal by an owner of land from an assessment thereof by a board of revision of taxes is properly dismissed, where the party complaining does not allege that its land has been assessed too high, but only that other lands of the same character, and of the same relative or greater value, have been assessed too low.

Mineral Railroad *&*Mining Co. v. Northumberland County Commissioners, 229 Pa. 436, followed.

Argued April 13, 1913.

Appeal, No. 86, Jan. T., 1913, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Northumberland Co., Sept. T., 1910, No. 324, dismissing appeal from valuation of coal lands by a board of revision in case of Mineral Railroad & Mining Company v. Northumberland County Commissioners.

Before Pell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter and Elkin, JJ.

Affirmed.

Argued April 14, 1913.

Appeal, No. 88, Jan. T.,

1913, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Northumberland Co., Sept. T., 1910, No. 325, dismissing appeal from valuation of coal lands by a board of revision in case of Mineral Railroad & Mining Company v. Northumber-

land County Commissioners.

Before Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Appeals from valuation of coal lands by the county commissioners acting as a board of revision. Before Cummings, P. J., and Moser, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

The court dismissed the appeals. Plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Errors assigned,*among others, were in dismissing the appeals.

*340*W. H. M. Oram,*for appellant in both, cases.

*C. B. Bavidge,*with him *J. H. McDevitt,*for appellees in both cases.

May 28, 1913:

Per Curiam,

These two appeals raise the same questions and may, therefore, be disposed of together. The complaint of the appellant is not that its lands have been assessed too high, but that others of the same relative or greater value have been assessed too low, and it is most earnestly contended that the court below should have sustained the appeals from the valuations fixed by the county commissioners as a board of revision. We have not been persuaded that either of these appeals ought to be sustained. What was said in Mineral Railroad and Mining Company v. Northumberland County Commissioners, 229 Pa. 436, fully vindicates the action of the court below.

Appeals dismissed at appellant’s costs.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ray T. WOODALL, Jr.

No. 61359.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 20, 1978.

In re: Ray T. Woodall, Jr., applying for writ of review. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE=BUREAU OF THE CENSUS ia (Di-876)

FOURTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1920—POPULATION
citys iB little tiene lau * Maa (net rilettona,f”
ENUMERATED BY ME ON THE. “v.. DAY OF lareee

“*"*[Tnseri naine of Inatiinllon, Wainy, and lindioata fie Minha on whieh the entiles are inade.” Wes Inaliaatlema |“ e

NATIVITY AND MOTHER TONGUE,

Place of bith of each person and parents of carh person enumerated, If born in the Waited Riates, give the elate of leeritory, fof foreign birth, give the place of birth
and, in addition, the mother tongue, (hee watrmetions,)

-_—e--— - as — -

PATUER, MOTHEN,

pes aepeeme /}
STATE... likeness: oa
COUNTY . Mads rr

R DIVISION OF COUNTY... wield

SUPERVISOR'S DISTRICT No, & ke SHEET NO.
ENUMERATION DISTRICT NO/.%&. 0...

. WARD OF CITY.. “f (lof

 MOksutsdcte.. @ A Yh | ENUMERATOR, 2 2-0

OOOUPATION,
os bee
Lad
adtes 0

TOWNSHIP OR oTt NAME OF INCORPORATED PLACE .

NAME OF INSTITUTION ...... » 1920,

NAMB

~] of cach person whose place of abode on
January 1, 1080, wanin this family.

Kater aurname Aire iba ta og name and middle

: ‘
HT iy Hoes.) Mather, a Sena *railaten sky by hanna § twee oon = Piere of birth. Muther tongue, Viaes of bith, Muther longue.
: :

PLAOR OF ABODE.

ceria Sas as
= Loy tues | Seer

be Garten ane

d | teres, | Cai
i veg Ina PKNAON,

Piece of birth, Muther dhe sad

— Tie

Uhgterwie

ore > SeCe ered lat biarweacesretses
ee A uP rials ee a

af 4 te

ae ete ee

V

co aeuntisese fF #*® B&BS BS

_
—

oa
as

Se a

a4 ea

4 -" . os » ee re
otha. MALTA. ccrcstrsneneee 7 Pe Baw
at 50 2 41 = c Tree saat, ‘|g cee “ ae
ye .

~~
~

(3

rar

dat 20g O

Ad ha (rertoras
7% Yt ees

a a et *
5
4

AY my, rap eaeq |

PPACA,

age

Able et AA)... Pelee eweeeeteadateecre

“A
?
“ STBAAAME...

iki fs Adt a4

yey =

oR
SS

4a taaa) 000 |keae nn aig =I

Historic census records are maintained and released by
the National Archives and Records Administration,
not the U.S. Census Bureau.

] aes wo 1 =a
FS mn FueB ying. 5 F 2 @t
—_ he anrae
: ei
eon ede eo eneeoene oe
i
13 PDE Lae te ee, Bese leeee > 18 JO 4
3 £¢ 170
SHH Oe 8d Od OOS” 66 EOE Er Oeeee
: ‘ a oe Fee
~
|
}\eaaereges
— — - +
Hy
/ '
| JF 4
Saerperee Tit ‘ r
. <
Bénin = han ~
j
|
a

y
=
a Oats

,

r

=
_

a ree Visit http:/Mwww.archives.gov for more information about publicly
available records like the one shown here.

RS wera

5.

te

hep

. bod panier
Lied drones
#### In the Matter of Charles H. Tressler.

Argued May *7,*1934.

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

*2
      *James L. Colbert,*for appellant.

*Vincent A. Baldauf,*for appellee.

July 13, 1934:

Per Curiam,

Charles H. Tressler is a war veteran, injured in the service. On November 19, 1930, the court of Centre County declared him incompetent to manage his affairs and appointed a guardian. Successively a number of people were appointed guardians and petitions were presented to the court to have the guardian removed and Tressler declared able to manage his own affairs.

The history of the case is quite complex and it is not necessary to set it out in detail. On August 30, 1933, a petition was presented and after hearing, dismissed. On October 26, 1933, a petition for the discharge of the guardian was presented and on November 3, 1933, refused. This was followed by a petition on November 10, 1933, which was on December 18, 1933, refused, and from the latter, an appeal was taken.

There is no question that under the Act of Assembly of 1907, P. L. 292, Sec. 7, the person who is declared incompetent may “at any time after the decree has been entered,” ask to have a discharge of his guardian and a finding in the court that he has regained his ability to take care of his property. This does not imply that the ward can annoy the court by frequent applications. There is nothing before us that would indicate that there has been any abuse of discretion in the action of the lower court. The man each month gets his full allotment, except so much as the court has ordered for the support of his wife. He is not hurt by the delay, except insofar that if he is of sound mind and capable of managing his affairs, he is entitled to be declared so by the court, but the court may *3interpose a reasonable time in which the matter may remain in abeyance. No doubt the way may be opened for this man after a reasonable time has elapsed to again petition the court, but we cannot convict the court of any abuse of discretion for refusing to consider a petition that was presented so soon after one had been refused.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
#### STATE of Florida, ex rel. William J. FORBES, Petitioner, v. E. Wilson PURDY, Sheriff of Metropolitan Dade County, Respondent.

No. 68-123.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 21, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas Corpus denied.
Exhibit 4.2
Description of Securities of VWF Bancorp, Inc. Registered Under
Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Common Stock, $0.01 Par Value Per Share
General
VWF Bancorp is authorized to issue 14,000,000 shares of common stock, par value of $0.01 per share.
Dividends
VWF Bancorp can pay dividends on its common stock if, after giving effect to such distribution, (i) it would be able to pay its indebtedness as the indebtedness comes due in the usual course of business and (ii) its total assets exceed the sum of its liabilities and the amount needed, if it were to be dissolved at the time of the distribution, to satisfy the preferential rights upon dissolution of any holders of capital stock who have a preference in the event of dissolution.  The holders of common stock of VWF Bancorp are entitled to receive and share equally in dividends as may be declared by the board of directors out of funds legally available therefor.  If VWF Bancorp issues shares of preferred stock, the holders of preferred stock may have a priority over the holders of the common stock with respect to dividends.
Voting Rights
The holders of common stock of VWF Bancorp have exclusive voting rights in VWF Bancorp.  They elect its board of directors and act on other matters as are required to be presented to them under Maryland law or as are otherwise presented to them by the board of directors.  Generally, each holder of common stock is entitled to one vote per share and do not have any right to cumulate votes in the election of directors.  Any person who beneficially owns more than 10% of the then-outstanding shares of VWF Bancorp’s common stock, however, is not be entitled or permitted to vote any shares of common stock held in excess of the 10% limit.  Amendments to the articles of incorporation generally require a two-thirds vote, and certain amendments require an 80% stockholder vote.
Liquidation
In the event of any liquidation, dissolution or winding up of Van Wert Federal, VWF Bancorp, as the holder of all of Van Wert Federal’s capital stock, would be entitled to receive all assets of Van Wert Federal available for distribution, after payment or provision for payment of all debts and liabilities of Van Wert Federal, including all deposit accounts and accrued interest thereon, and after distribution of the balance in the liquidation account established in connection with Van Wert Federal’s conversion from the mutual form of organization to the stock form of organization.  In the event of liquidation, dissolution or winding up of VWF Bancorp, the holders of its common stock would be entitled to receive, after payment or provision for payment of all its debts and liabilities, all of the assets of VWF Bancorp available for distribution.
Preemptive Rights; Redemption
Holders of the common stock of VWF Bancorp are not be entitled to preemptive rights with respect to any shares that may be issued, unless such preemptive rights are approved by the board of directors.  The common stock is not subject to redemption.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OC TOBER 11, 2013

NO. 03

- 11

- 00640

- CR

Alan Joseph Mury, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERT ON AND FIELD
AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s

judgment: IT IS ORDER ED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the judgment

of the trial court is in all things affirmed; and it appearing that the appellant is indigent and

unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision be certified

bel ow for observance.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130278 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130278 COA: 261891 Wayne CC: 02-003794 JUSTICE MICHAEL HERRON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to a ppeal the October 14, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0424 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2006

Clerk