alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Annual Report of Congoleum Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Howard N. Feist
III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge:

      (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.


March 30, 2004

/s/ Howard N. Feist III
-------------------------
Howard N. Feist III
Chief Financial Officer


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

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Table B-1.  Standard Errors of Vacancy Rates by Area:  2003
                   (Range of 68 chances out of 100)
 
 
 
    Rental                        Rate   Standard   Year-to-   Standard
                                   for   error on year diff-   error on
                                  year       rate     erencedifference1
 
United States..............       9.8        0.1        0.8        0.1
  Inside Metropolitan Areas       9.6        0.1        0.9        0.2
    In central cities......      10.0        0.2        0.8        0.2
    Not in central cities..       9.2        0.2        1.1        0.2
  Outside Metropolitan Area      10.6        0.3        0.4        0.4
  Northeast................       6.6        0.2        0.8        0.3
  Midwest..................      10.8        0.2        0.7        0.3
  South....................      12.5        0.2        0.9        0.3
  West.....................       7.7        0.2        0.8        0.2
 
                                   For-rent as a percent of all housing
 
United States..............       3.0         (z)       0.2         (z)
  Inside Metropolitan Areas       3.2         (z)       0.3        0.1
  Outside Metropolitan Area       2.3        0.1        0.1        0.1
  Northeast................       2.2        0.1        0.3        0.1
  Midwest..................       2.9        0.1        0.2        0.1
  South....................       3.7        0.1        0.2        0.1
  West.....................       2.7        0.1        0.2        0.1
 
 
     Homeowner
                                  Rate   Standard   Year-to-   Standard
                                   for   error on year diff-   error on
                                  year       rate     erencedifference1
 
United States..............       1.8         (z)       0.1         (z)
  Inside Metropolitan Areas       1.7         (z)       0.1         (z)
    In central cities......       2.0        0.1         (z)       0.1
    Not in central cities..       1.5         (z)       0.1        0.1
  Outside Metropolitan Area       2.1        0.1        0.1        0.1
  Northeast................       1.2        0.1         (z)       0.1
  Midwest..................       1.7        0.1         (z)       0.1
  South....................       2.1        0.1        0.3        0.1
  West.....................       1.6        0.1         (z)       0.1
 
 
                                   For-sale-only as a percent of all ho
 
United States..............       1.1         (z)       0.1         (z)
  Inside Metropolitan Areas       1.0         (z)       0.1         (z)
  Outside Metropolitan Area       1.3        0.1        0.1        0.1
  Northeast................       0.7         (z)        (z)       0.1
  Midwest..................       1.1         (z)        (z)       0.1
  South....................       1.3         (z)       0.2         (z)
  West.....................       0.9         (z)        (z)        (z)
 
  Z less than 0.05 percent.
  1Difference between 2003 rates and 2002 rates.
#### Leonard COREN, Milton Coren, David Lloyd and Frances Lloyd, d/b/a GMC Agent, d/b/a GMC Auto Sales and Giant Motor Corp., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. HOLLYWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES RADIO, INC., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Radio Station WGMA, Appellee.

No. 70-199.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 5, 1971.

Leonard Frishman, of Law Offices of Leonard Frishman, Coral Gables, for appellants.

Jerome F. Pollock, of Law Offices of Hulmes, Dreiling & Pollock, Hollywood, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Croker v. Powell, 1934, 115 Fla. 733, 156 So. 146 and M. A. Kite Co. v. A. C. Samford, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 99.

CROSS, C. J., OWEN, J., and McCAIN, DAVID L., Associate Judge, concur.
60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

1997 `98 `99 2000 `01 `02 `03 `04 `05 `06 `07 `08 `09 `10 `11 `12 `13 `14 `15 `16 `17 `18 `19 `20 `21 2022

Percent

Quarterly Homeownership Rates and Seasonally Adjusted Homeownership 

Rates for the United States: 1997-2022

Homeownership Rate

Recession

Figure 6

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey, March 15, 2023

Recession data: National Bureau of Economic Research, <www.nber.org>

Seasonally Adjusted 

Homeownership Rate
254 La. 142

#### Mr. and Mrs. Ignace THERIOT v. TEXAS AND NEW ORLEANS RAILROAD COMPANY et al.

No. 49840.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 9, 1969.

In re: Mr. and Mrs. Ignace Theriot applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of St. Charles. 220 So.2d 563.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.

SANDERS, J., is of the opinion that the court erred in applying the “open country” doctrine and the writ should he granted.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Richard A. Wisot, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PROLIANCE
INTERNATIONAL, 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(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)) 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(s) 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 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.

Date: November 14, 2006                    /s/ Richard A. Wisot
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Richard A. Wisot
                                           Chief Financial Officer

                                       33
```
#### Joseph Carlos GARCIA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-360.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 22, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Loyd J. ROCKHOLD (Plaintiff-Appellee), v. John J. McKEITHEN, Governor of Louisiana, et al. (Defendants), and Murphy W. BELL (Intervenor-Appellant).

No. 8704.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Oct. 5, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 3, 1971.

*247Robert J. Eames, Baton Rouge, and T. M.' McBride, III, Chalmette, for intervenor-appellant.

Charles William Roberts, of Burton, Roberts & Ward, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee.

Melvin L. Bellar, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee.

Before SARTAIN, ELLIS and TUCKER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

It is conceded by all parties to this litigation that the issues initially presented to the district judge are now moot. Since there remains no justiciable issue, this cause is hereby dismissed. The cost of this appeal is to be borne by the Inter-venor-Appellant.

Appeal dismissed.

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Counsel for appellant has asked for a rehearing and urges that our per curiam opinion is ambiguous. It is asserted that in the decretal portion of the opinion we stated, “ * * * this cause is hereby dismissed” ; whereas, we followed with the provision “appeal dismissed.”

We wish to clarify our opinion by stating that the issues in this cause have now become moot and any further pronouncements on the subject matter of this litigation would be purely advisory. Stoddard v. City of New Orleans, 246 La. 417, 165 So.2d 9 (1964); State v. Board of Supervisors, 228 La. 951, 84 So.2d 597; Tugwell v. Members of Board of Highways, 228 La. 662, 83 So.2d 893.

The intended effect of our ruling was and is to dismiss this cause in its entirety and any impression to the contrary was inadvertently given.

Rehearing refused.
EXHIBIT
23.1








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form
S-8 Nos. 333-34653 and 333-84387) pertaining to the Congoleum Corporation 1995
Stock Option Plan and the Non-Qualified, Non-Employee Directors Stock Option
Plan of our report dated March 21, 2008, with respect to the Consolidated
Financial Statements and schedule of Congoleum Corporation included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.








/s/ Ernst & Young
LLP


Ernst
& Young LLP








Boston,
Massachusetts


March 31,
2008
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4051

PHILLIP BARRY MCDANIELS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge.

(CR-96-166-BO)

Submitted: July 24, 1997

Decided: August 11, 1997

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William Arthur Webb, Federal Public Defender, Gordon Widenhouse,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M.

Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Peter W. Kellen, Assistant

United States Attorney, Amy Melissa Guy, Third Year Law Student,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Barry McDaniels pled guilty to escape from custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (1994), and received a sentence of 37

months imprisonment consecutive to the 50-month sentence he was

then serving in a minimum security facility. McDaniels contends on

appeal that the district court erred in finding that the escape was a

crime of violence and sentencing him as a career offender. United

States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual , § 4B1.1 (Nov.

1996). We affirm.

McDaniels walked away from his work detail at a golf course at

the Federal Correctional Institution at Seymour Johnson Air Force

Base in North Carolina. He hitchhiked to South Carolina where he

was arrested without incident two days later. He argues that the

escape was not a crime of violence. McDaniels acknowledges our

holding in United States v. Dickerson, 77 F.3d 774, 777 (4th Cir.),

cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 3259 (U.S. Oct. 7, 1996)

(No. 95-9207), that "the crime of felony attempted escape from custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 751(a), in the abstract, involves

conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to

another, and thus, constitutes a crime of violence for purposes of the

Career Offender provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, see USSG

§ 4B1.1." Our decision in Dickerson encompasses any escape or

attempted escape, including escape from a minimum security facility.

Williams contends that Dickerson was wrongly decided; however, as

he recognizes, a panel cannot overrule the decision of a prior panel

in this circuit. See Brubaker v. City of Richmond, 943 F.2d 1363,

1381-82 (4th Cir. 1991).

The sentence is therefore affirmed. 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

 2
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Petitioner, v. Lucille E. MORAN, Respondent.

No. 43223.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 21, 1973.

Leonard Rivkind, Miami Beach, and Richard C. McFarlain, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

John J. Quinn, Key West, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We issued a Rule to Show Cause, in consequence of a petition by The Florida Bar, directing Lucille E. Moran to explain why she should not be held in contempt of this Court for the unauthorized practice of law in this State. Article V, § 15, Florida Constitution, F.S.A. (formerly, Article V, § 23, Florida Constitution, 1968); Article II, § 2, Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 32 F.S.A.

The unauthorized practice consisted of her distribution and use of business cards bearing these words: “Independent Bar Association of Massachusetts, Lucille E. Moran, Attorney at Law, Specializing in Tax Defenses, P. O. Box 641, Tavernier, Florida 33070.” The Bar’s position is that the card falsely represents and suggests that she is an attorney licensed to practice in this State. We agree. Respondent is resident in Florida; she appears to hold herself out for business here; she advertises that her specialty is tax defense work and that she is an attorney at law. The logical inference is that Florida permits her to practice. See The Florida Bar v. Fuentes, 190 So.2d 748 (Fla.1966).

Although acknowledging in her response to the Rule that she had distributed the cards, respondent now states through her counsel that she does not intend to distribute the card in the future. Accepting this *391statement of cooperation as true, we are satisfied that the Rule heretofore issued should be discharged.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### WOOD INDUSTRIES, LTD., INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. WOOD PRODUCTS OF GAINESVILLE, INC., a Florida corporation, and Fred B. Bullard, Jr., Appellees.

No. S-162.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 11, 1973.

Hugo P. Edberg, of Hill, Hill & Dicken-son, Tampa, for appellant.

William B. Watson, III, and John M. Steadham, of Watson & Watson, Gaines-ville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed. See M. A. Kite Company v. A. C. Samford, Inc. (Fla.App.1961) 130 So.2d 99; Croker v. *483Powell, 115 Fla. 733, 156 So. 146; Saf-T-Clean, Inc. v. Martin-Marietta Corporation (Fla.1967) 197 So.2d 8; B & F of Clearwater, Inc. v. Wesley Construction Company (Fla.App.1970) 237 So.2d 790.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Table 11.  Percent Distribution by Type of Unit, for the United States and Regions:
                  First Quarter 2005 and 2006

(Percent distribution may not add to total, due to rounding)


                                                   First Quarter 2005

Type of housing unit
                                           United    North-     Mid-      South      West
                                           States     east      West

All housing units........................      100       100       100       100       100

    Year-round vacant....................      9.7       8.2       9.6      11.7       7.6
      For rent...........................      3.1       2.4       3.3       3.5       2.6
      For sale only......................      1.1       1.1       1.5       1.2       0.7
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy.      0.7       0.6       0.8       0.7       0.8
      Held off market....................      4.8       4.2       4.0       6.3       3.5
        For occasional use...............      1.6       1.3       1.0       2.2       1.6
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere...      1.0       1.1       0.9       1.2       0.7
        For other reasons................      2.2       1.8       2.1       3.0       1.2

    Seasonal vacant......................      2.9       3.9       2.8       2.5       2.9

    Occupied.............................     87.4      87.8      87.5      85.8      89.5



                                                   First Quarter 2006


                                           United    North-     Mid-      South      West
                                           States     east      West

All housing units........................       100       100       100       100       100

    Year-round vacant....................      9.7       7.8       9.6      11.6       8.1
      For rent...........................      2.9       2.5       3.6       3.1       2.3
      For sale only......................      1.3       0.9       1.6       1.4       1.0
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy.      0.9       0.7       0.8       0.9       0.9
      Held off market....................      4.7       3.7       3.7       6.1       3.9
        For occasional use...............      1.5       1.0       0.8       1.9       1.8
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere...      1.1       1.1       0.8       1.4       0.8
        For other reasons................      2.1       1.7       2.1       2.8       1.3

    Seasonal vacant......................      3.1       4.0       2.7       3.0       3.0

    Occupied.............................     87.2      88.2      87.8      85.3      88.9
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,334
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,935
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,957
<INVENTORY>                                     60,309
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,545
<PP&E>                                          93,493
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,995
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 155,680
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,971
<BONDS>                                         47,287
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,426
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   155,680
<SALES>                                         68,535
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                68,535
<CGS>                                           52,135
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,135
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,587
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   811
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 971
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,842
<INCOME-TAX>                                       751
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,091
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,091
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
#### The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, an association organized under the laws of the United States, Appellant, v. Juan CASTILLO and Amelia Castillo, Appellees.

No. 70-1006.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 18, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.