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/A of Minn Dak Farmers Cooperative;


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 officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and Rule 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:


a)
        designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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;


b)
        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.


c)
        disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal quarter 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 officers 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:


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:
        November 27, 2006
        
        
        /s/  Steven M. CaspersExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


---
#### LEONARD BROS. TRUCKING CO., Inc., etc., Appellant, v. FLORIDA INTER-ISLAND SHIPPING CORP., et al., Appellees.

No. 69-405.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 3, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Global Preferred Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 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.

Date: November 14, 2003                   /s/ Edward F. McKernan
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Edward F. McKernan
                                          Chief Executive Officer
#### Virginia Sutton SALLEY, Appellant, v. Gertrude DIAZ, Appellee.

No. 71-934.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 30, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
a Se Ne SAL Seite ek eae

me te ee Le .

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

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

Dadoet bam av.| a 2G  Aaditee ean ae
Hea Ccteabeon:| AA BR UBF LON he
x tye NB PR ice Lab e

do Ss (eas Se Re cet }

4 Zi. en EN eB 1 KA -

» Boba OD roy fee area re ar

ie LS AN Ab ein (OER Ae

Secs ea ae Pray: ema el” Vie ar sex Rory ew ele

ware Vv ie as ge Od ANE AEM

Sa LB ona PID fag A wi hoed pA be ei Re

aye ee Pir Miss cick ect | os

B= a Dey eee Aja (Ade

i> Z eget al [Apa 1 |

i Maa SRP a sw ae l4

s a OS Sey ot tp a ae 2%

+ Bir VS ue Fi he Ae *

Pe ees Bil es | AS ec

e
s
N
N
\
+
:
>
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Robert BANKS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53954.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 12, 1973.

In re: Robert Banks applying for writ of certiorari and writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. Insufficient showing to warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
#### Hollis SMITH and Edmond J. Duhart, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 70-457, 70-458.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 9, 1971.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, Harold Ungerleider, Asst. Public Defender, and Ralph G. Goberna, Special Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendants, Smith and Duhart, appeal from their judgments of conviction on the charge of robbery.

Smith argues that his conviction was based upon circumstantial evidence which did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. A review of the evidence refutes this argument. See Williams v. State, 73 Fla. 1198, 75 So. 785 (1917); Douglas v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 653, and Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24.

Duhart claims that the evidence of his identification was insufficient to sustain *603the jury verdict of guilty and the judgment of conviction. The record reveals sufficient, competent evidence concerning the identification of the defendant Duhart to submit this factual issue to the jury for determination. Harris v. State, 129 Fla. 733, 177 So. 187 (1937); and Stuckey v. State, Fla.App.1967,199 So.2d 137.

Smith and Duhart claim that the state committed prejudicial and reversible error in making certain remarks in its closing arguments to the jury.

Counsel for the defendants did not object to the first remarks of the state in the closing argument. Defendants claim that these remarks were prejudicial for the first time on appeal. This they cannot do. We have examined the closing argument of the state, however, and find that the remarks complained of for the first time on appeal do not constitute fundamental, or prejudicial error.

The prosecution did make one statement in closing argument which the defendants properly objected to and which objection was sustained. Defendants then moved for a mistrial which was denied and they charge that this ruling was reversible error. The denial of the motion of the defendants for a mistrial was proper in these circumstances. See Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582 (1930) ; and Burkhead v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 206 So.2d 690.

The defendants’ last point for reversal is that the trial court abused its discretion and erred in permitting an officer to testify as to their identity and to the date of the alleged robbery after the rule excluding witnesses was invoked. The record does not reflect a prejudicial abuse of discretion by the trial judge in this ruling. Spencer v. State, Fla.1961, 133 So.2d 729; and Griffin v. State, Fla.App.1960, 124 So. 2d 38.

The final judgments herein appealed are

Affirmed.
#### GUARANTY BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. QUAD DRILLING CORPORATION et al.

No. 53460.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1973.

In re: Patricia Gay Mydland, Co-executrix of the Succession of Tennis L. Myd-land applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Tangipahoa. 273 So.2d 717.

Not considered. Not timely filed.
#### George C. MATTHEWS, Petitioner, v. SEABOARD PROPERTIES, INC., et al., Respondents.

No. 41110.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 23, 1971.

Eugene E. Williams of Williams & Tomlinson, Coral Gables, for petitioner.

Donald D. Gillis of Underwood, Gillis & Karcher, Miami, for respondents Seaboard Properties, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.

Joe E. Hodges, for respondent Industrial Relations Commission.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM.

The Industrial Relations Commission has moved to dismiss the claimant’s petition for writ of certiorari seeking review, on the theory that the Commission’s order remanding to the Judge of Industrial Claims is interlocutory and nonreviewable in this Court.

It is an established rule of law that an order of the Industrial Relations Commission remanding for further evidence is not final, but is interlocutory and nonrev-iewable. Bachelder v. Four Way Nursery, 136 So.2d 643 (Fla.1962); Liquori v. Heftier Construction Co., 160 So.2d 113 (Fla.1964). The primary purpose of this rule is to permit the Commission, when evidence or findings of fact are inadequate to permit proper review, to remand for further evidence and findings of fact.

The rule does not apply in those cases where the Commission remands for further evidence, but in its order also makes final disposition of some element of the claim. Such final orders may be reviewed in this Court on petition for certiorari. Sterling Equipment Manufacturing Corp. v. May, 144 So.2d 305 (Fla.1962); Steele v. Johnston, 143 So.2d 36 (Fla.1962); Patrylo v. Nautilus Hotel, 142 So.2d 279 (Fla.1962).

In the case *sitb judice,*the Commission’s order of remand did not result from a conclusion that evidence or findings of fact grounded thereon were inadequate. Rather, the remand was ordered on grounds the Judge of Industrial Claims *850who heard the case was without jurisdiction, the case being remanded to another Judge of Industrial Claims. The Commission also held that the order entered by the first Judge of Industrial Claims was invalid, the award of compensation was invalid, and award of attorneys’ fees was invalid. These orders all are final, and as such, may be reviewed on the merits on petition for certiorari in this Court.

For the reasons stated, the motion to dismiss is denied.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### In re ESTATE of Robert O. COOK, Deceased. Eulalie S. COOK, Appellant, v. PALMER FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF SARASOTA, Appellee.

No. 70-624.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 10, 1971.

*695Ezra J. Regen, Sarasota, for appellant.

Worth Dexter, Jr., of Dexter, Conlee & Bissell, Sarasota, for appellee.

MANN, Judge.

An order fixing attorney’s fees in a probate proceeding is “final” in the sense that it is an appealable order although it may not be the last such order in an estate. Fla. P&GR 5.100. It is apparent upon reflection that probate proceedings differ from ordinary litigation in that the rights of outside parties are from time to time determined and orders entered in the course of administration result in payment, or the necessity for filing suit, whereas the ordinary action involves the same parties throughout and a single appeal from final judgment is appropriate.

The order appealed from here is correct for other reasons. Mrs. Cook attempted to vacate an order fixing attorney’s fees, to which she had consented, based on the minimum fee schedule of the Sarasota County Bar Association — which did not bind the county judge — more than a year after they were fixed and paid. She contends that they were paid through “mistake.” If so, it was the sort of mistake of judgment all of us make and which the law does not allow us to contest on the grounds shown here. There was no “mistake” in any legal sense. The matter was settled when she consented to the payment of the fee and it was paid and she filed her accounting noting its payment and time —much more time than Rule 1.540, Fla. RCP, 31 F.S.A. would allow — went by. See Smoak v. Graham, Fla.1964, 167 So.2d 559.

Affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
—~C&.
— === T= or
- ine ees pn owe Pvt nmin | 1 | ramorie susogsuse |g | $ | HE | Ha] -
: 534 | stceot abe othe fe lor Trae of each pert, or Tartory of V. 83 or | | @ | a2 | 34 |
i Sens, 170, wart the ily >| Tele or female, i } com ttertndensnas | FEE | 3g | $f .
gl ¢ sree HE
i i A/E|H HE ;
8 7 | 8 ° 0 -  fatlaz) ial as fo y -
r Gade ol xl Ad Worn oauads la
a. Somutrz42|ol a2 Uy) TB bz, | i
ae antes la byl A AL. leh on Vil, a

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

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

Michie.) |. ME hraael) | * a wee 7
(xc 11 Mernoale. Sex S De.Loan. Z . - | 8
— ~
ima
Le

letra Le
1 | Cee Zed lela Z |: [fy >

rol | Bore Yrrnaste —_ z oe | |r0
NB Lhake, \o\alr| Rees /ioes| 200 | Jocer Oye : aie
Sf, 2 “ Te ee

mil 3

- 2h [oor
Ly i Gis.
~ [ i 16
Dork hk : [Laz
bake Ais
su > i >. m
7 : -
Z 2 EL |eo
26-4... z\z i old

3 “a Alef, aS. bhe- soil eel Juin Yok | | ee
att “ a Ml] Vike || crdel_ oz 2 a Pak
F ; ;
EXHIBIT 32.2







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Royce Biomedical, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph C. Sienkiewicz, Chief  Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 13, 2005                            /s/ Joseph C. Sienkiewicz



----------------------------



Joseph C. Sienkiewicz



Chief Financial Officer









[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Royce Biomedical, Inc. and will be retained by Royce Biomedical, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
4
Incccpeorated pass EP IA er Ward of city...

Township or other
division of county —............

a nnnnne Block Now. Let 2E, -tnstitation
(Rune of tthutien ed Une eo which ecirie are made)

Boyan Shoo Sate An rotes comer te Barrens Sclertea oomarin ona Vester canetoe’” oes Goma agans nam he Wend ae Rerpecse dl Nenaion’ egestas,

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE—BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
SIXTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1940

POPULATION SCHEDULE

Enumerated by me on

Name of

uaux

b person whose usual place
oo en Apel 1, 1840, wes ta

HE

ii

te
H

t

Lita

tn

cual |

PLACE OF BINTH

REMDENCE, APEIL 1, 1985

apne. ena 3 eo ZA

fll 1+

= a

myn tates

i

nite

"FRESE

IAT PLACH DCD TEM PRAGON LIVE 08 API 1. HEN
on Apr 1, ak, wes fe Ue sare Recon anal presmat wuier in
"ant he ane ik diffierenk ows bul |i thet same nity a
Dae phan,” baw rng 1A, 488 WO Man, be Woh eta

exter at twe. eveniy ond La
Banat Sat Eames Vice ter Siew bore

nae, iw fee

ri

tl

”

a :

pas i

jit setktverat wort
tat sanagied te
palate emer

ees
iz Ameerine
Haters

=
“a

omrupe tien, wtsatrt, aed clea of worker >
a Pane ‘teow wochor” te Ol Mons aoe nlf

OCCUPATION, IRDOCETEY, xD Clam oF wore

* 1 wor, asargmned
PER Beto itiacr nrtoon! moun
Tags paren snabinn wrk ("Ter \m Cab 08 ta) W be us presen wore

matpooneon nsoeays sad tase doom

‘her pee os
—. ane

one tte ae

eee om

com
Leer tame)

eee a ares s oshad ie Rem

tyres ty mat omen

i>
WT iF co | tet Risie (MD, Female 7

we.

H.C.

x

‘3

42.C

» jet | 2! *

o|

Ky

iw at ;
S fy | PQ |e] 00m chawee tenes

Lc. ta.

4. esi)

2)

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

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

Re

iar |

|
iy Joh, EF |

Wika?

77

ofa

dee

ft}

zasizae
Mile eB

Hie

i
SSisky Pele

RR EERE RIPE EES

iia pein

x
TEES YRREBREPRE

Fire igly vin

ee |

ae
is

Fe
=

CKERRER REE
RAPER Ete

$8 j2 8

~~ kM,

s

=

SUPPLEMENTARY
QUESTIONS

# Perseus Eaumersted xa Lives 55 cxd 08

|

ais

a |e in

EERRH ARE

a

Meat alps

FOR PERSONE 14 YEARS OLD AND OVER

ay

yyts

sy

FOE OFFICE THE ONLT—DO NOT WKITE IN THESE COLTEES

SHUAL OCCUVATION, INDONTAY, AMD CLAM OF WORKIR
thet

7

‘seat ocourartos UevaL UFDUNTEY

coun
(Lawes blah)

wumsan been suaneied |
e|*sshosevasses| 82] 4

yr nape tore i

at
‘eet

re re

#
segpeepy

bny-ght tle
. 7 y
Pes nate

A nocie

46

i

1

ann
exrtasarout
roTm

fi

“al

Od 14 GHENT GRADE OF PENOOL COMFLETED,
DB ern reyres eepeprr en es ee: ,
Ricimecniany muon, Late Ws pre A A, ama te
Ce ee
POT OM OR TF crs OL OH OR OF

Cellos, Hehe oe sar FE emi Ob

CO ened

V

ARAY

f=

Pn!

ue

i
Awan

me
el 17 | 2

Col 6 CIVRENAEIP OF THE FORDOS

wn. fone er tr at

foe

‘wonny
srk

fas & S48 OF RRUTORS MRE
Cunt Be
bao nae bngrince we
Rcctoepee, tqocoroemeas
oe
Ls —)} mm

=~

——
--———
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.4
                                                                   
                            PAGEMART WIRELESS, INC.                
                                                                   

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
                                                            --------------------------------------------
                                                                NUMBER         PERCENT      EQUIVALENT
                                                               OF SHARES     OUTSTANDING      SHARES
                                                               ---------     -----------      ------
<S>                                                             <C>              <C>        <C>
COMMON STOCK
   From Founders' Stock                                          2,300,000       100.00%       2,300,000
   Stock Options Exercised                                         479,992        99.70%         478,545
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock                    15,310,943       100.00%      15,310,943
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                                  11,242,857       100.00%      11,242,857
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                                   4,323,874        59.20%       2,559,848
                                                              ------------                  ------------
                                                                33,657,666                    31,892,193
                                                                                           
Total adjustments to outstanding shares:                                                       1,033,577

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                           32,925,770

NET LOSS                                                                                    ($41,088,000)

NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                                ($1.25)
                                                                                            ============
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

                                 CERTIFICATION
                                      OF
                              PSB HOLDINGS, INC.
                UNDER SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      The undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
PSB Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") certify pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that (1) the quarterly
report on Form 10-Q of PSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d), and (2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of PSB.

      Date: May 14, 2004

                                           DAVID K. KOPPERUD
                                           David K. Kopperud
                                           President and CEO


                                           SCOTT M. CATTANACH
                                           Scott M. Cattanach
                                           Treasurer
                                           (Chief Financial Officer)
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Investors FinancialServices, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endingJanuary 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tommy A. Moore, Jr., Chief Executive Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                   The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934; and

(2)                   The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

Date:  March 12, 2004

 
|   | By: /s/ Tommy A. Moore, Jr. |   |
|--------|-----------------------------|--------|
|   | Tommy A. Moore, Jr.         |
|   | Chief Executive Officer     |

 

----