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;

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: 41405 | /s/  Steven M. Caspers                              
|------------- | ----------------------------------------------------
|              |                                                     
|              | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Frank Clyde REESE, Respondent.

No. 40560.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 12, 1971.

James E. Hodge, Jacksonville, for The Florida Bar, complainant.

Frank Clyde- Reese, in pro. per.

PER CURIAM.

We have for review a report of the referee in this disciplinary action in which it is recommended that respondent, Frank Clyde Reese, be publicly reprimanded and charged with the costs of the proceedings against him. A hearing has not been requested.

The referee’s report includes the following :

> “FINDINGS OF FACT

> “After considering all of the pleadings, exhibits and evidence before me, I find that:

> “1. The respondent between October 28, 1968 and November 12, 1968, did withhold from funds belonging to Harold Paul Heffernan, an absentee person, and as to which his client, Helen Rita Hef-fernan, was conservator, the amount of $497.25 and did thereafter place said amount in an account with funds of his own, thereby commingling said funds.

> “2. Subsequently, during or about December, 1968, the respondent did apply said amount to the payment of a personal obligation to the Internal Revenue Department, thereby making an unauthorized use of said funds for his own personal benefit.

> “3. The respondent did not intend to deprive the client of said funds and initially withheld them for a purpose which he conceived to be of benefit to the client.

> “4. The respondent knowingly and intentionally used said funds for a payment of a personal obligation, under threat of seizure by the Internal Revenue Department.

> “5. The respondent has re-paid said funds to the client prior to the institution of these proceedings.

> “RECOMMENDATION OF GUILT

> “It is recommended that respondent be found guilty as charged in the complaint, and particularly that he be found guilty of violation of Article XI, Rule 11.02(4) of the Integration Rule [32 F.S.A.],

> “RECOMMENDATION OF DISCIPLINE

> “It is recommended that respondent be administered a public reprimand and that he pay the costs of these proceedings.”

Having examined the record and report, we now approve the findings and recommendations of the referee. Respondent, Frank Clyde Reese, is hereby publicly reprimanded and the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $77.35 are hereby charged against him.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Table 10.  Percent Distribution by Type of Unit for the United States and 
                  for Inside and Outside MAs:  Third Quarter 1998 and 1997

(Percent distribution may not add to total, due to rounding)



                                                     Third quarter 1998
Type of housing unit
                                              United   Inside     Outside
                                              States     MAs        MAs

All housing units.........................       100        100        100

    Year-round vacant.....................       9.0        8.3       11.5
      For rent............................       2.7        2.8        2.2
      For sale only.......................       1.0        0.9        1.4
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy..       0.8        0.8        0.7
      Held off market.....................       4.4        3.7        7.1
        For occasional use................       1.5        1.1        2.8
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere....       0.7        0.7        0.7
        For other reasons.................       2.2        1.8        3.6

    Seasonal vacant.......................       2.9        1.7        7.2

    Occupied..............................      88.2       90.0       81.3



                                                     Third quarter 1997
Type of housing unit
                                              United   Inside     Outside
                                              States     MAs        MAs

All housing units.........................       100        100        100

    Year-round vacant.....................       8.6        8.2       10.4
      For rent............................       2.6        2.7        2.2
      For sale only.......................       0.9        0.9        1.1
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy..       0.8        0.8        0.7
      Held off market.....................       4.3        3.7        6.5
        For occasional use................       1.6        1.2        2.9
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere....       0.8        0.8        0.8
        For other reasons.................       2.0        1.8        2.8

    Seasonal vacant.......................       2.9        1.7        7.4

    Occupied..............................      88.5       90.2       82.1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27.1 - Financial Data Schedule

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements included in the Company's Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                         JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                          DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                     50,344
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              19,216
<ALLOWANCES>                                                3,336
<INVENTORY>                                                45,192
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          117,484
<PP&E>                                                    181,543
<DEPRECIATION>                                             93,589
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            231,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      48,983
<BONDS>                                                    99,526
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                       94
<OTHER-SE>                                                 37,759
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              231,865
<SALES>                                                   259,126
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          261,982
<CGS>                                                     181,997
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             181,997
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           56,839
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          7,365
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            15,516
<INCOME-TAX>                                                5,663
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         9,853
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             2,413
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                                7,440
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 .82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 .82
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS, INC.

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 AirTran Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph B. Leonard, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Stanley J Gadek, Senior Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and

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



|            |  |     |  |                                                                      
|----------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|May 8, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/JOSEPH B. LEONARD                                                 
|            |  |     |  | Joseph B. Leonard                                                    
|            |  |     |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                                 
|            |  |    
|            |  | By: |  | /s/STANLEY J. GADEK                                                  
|            |  |     |  | Stanley J. Gadek                                                     
|            |  |     |  | Senior Vice President, Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-50775

Summary Calendar

_____________________

MARGARET COLE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER

OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(SA-96-CV-1164)

_________________________________________________________________

July 7, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Margaret Cole appeals the judgment affirming the decision of

the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim for

Supplemental Security Income. She contends that the Commissioner

failed to apply the correct legal standards and that his decision

was not supported by substantial evidence.

The Commissioner’s decision reflects that the Commissioner

applied the proper legal standards in denying benefits to Cole.
- 2 -

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1995); Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 558,

563 n.2 (5th Cir. 1995). Further, a review of the record reflects

substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner’s decision. See

Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995). Based on our

review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment for

essentially the reasons stated by the district court. See Cole v.

Callahan, No. SA-96-CA-1164 (W.D. Tex. July 24, 1997).

AFFIRMED
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21878-21879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9472]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Portsmouth

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Portsmouth. The 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires 
that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal 
Register.

DATES: Thursday, May 5, 2011, 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Ohio State University, Endeavor Center, 1862 Shyville Road, 
Piketon, Ohio 45661.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Bradburne, Deputy Designated 
Federal Officer, Department of Energy Portsmouth/Paducah Project 
Office, Post Office Box 700, Piketon, Ohio 45661, (740) 897-3822, 
Joel.Bradburne@lex.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management and related activities.
    Tentative Agenda:

 Call to Order, Introductions, Review of Agenda.
 Approval of March Minutes.
 Deputy Designated Federal Officer's Comments.
 Federal Coordinator's Comments.
 Liaisons' Comments.
 Introduction of FLOUR Presentation.
 Administrative Issues:
    [cir] Subcommittee Updates.
 Public Comments.
 Final Comments.
 Adjourn.

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The EM 
SSAB, Portsmouth, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory 
committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons 
with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special 
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Joel Bradburne at 
least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone

[[Page 21879]]

number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board 
either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral 
statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Joel Bradburne at 
the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received 
five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to 
include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal 
Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will 
facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make 
public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present 
their comments.
    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Joel 
Bradburne at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will 
also be available at the following Web site: http://www.ports-ssab.energy.gov/.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on April 13, 2011.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Acting Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-9472 Filed 4-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
Dismissed; Opinion Filed September 3, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01553

- CV
PHYLLIS SLICKER , Appellant

V. WILLIAM SLICKER AND LESLIE G. MARTIN, P.C. , Appellees On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 11

- 15742
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Partida

- Kipness

Opinion by Justice Schenck Appellant’s brief in this case is o verdue. By postcard dated June 30, 2020 , we notified appellant the time for filing appellant’s brief had expired. We directed
appellant to file a brief and an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to file a brief and an e xtension motion would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not filed a brief, filed an extension motion, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal.– 2

–

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b),
(c).

191553 F

. P 05 /David J. Schenck/ DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

PHYLLIS SLICKER, Appellant

No. 05

- 19

- 01553

- CV V.

WILLIAM SLICKER AND LESLIE G. MARTIN, P.C., Appellees On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 11

- 15742. Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. Justices Osborne and Partida

- Kipness participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellees WILLIAM SLICKER AND LESLIE G. MARTIN, P.C. recover their costs of this appeal from appellant PHYLLIS SLICKER.

Judgment entered this 3rd day o f September , 2020

.
#### Eric GOETZ and A. C. Manufacturing Company, Appellants, v. Robert G. BRIALMONT, Appellee.

No. 73-150.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 21, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1974.

*362Horton & Perse, Patton, Kanner, Na-deau, Segal & Stobs, Miami, for appellants.

Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, Strauss & McCormick, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellants seek review of an adverse final judgment awarding $15,900 to plaintiff on a breach of contract action.

Plaintiff and defendants on June 1, 1967 entered into an oral agreement to be performed within one year for the marketing of defendants’ boats. Plaintiff was to set up distributorships throughout the southeastern United States. He claimed that defendants represented that gross sales over a year would be about $600,000; that there would be a 5% sales profit over the manufacturing price (which itself contained a $300 per boat built-in profit for the manufacturer); and as compensation plaintiff would receive $15,000 of the 5% sales profit as salary, his expenses, and thereafter the remaining profits would be divided equally, The $300 built-in profit would be paid into the business venture, and a $100 commission placed into the venture for any boat sold locally. Plaintiff characterized the arrangement as a “partnership”. During the period from June to November, plaintiff traveled extensively, set up 15 or 16 dealerships, and incurred about $3,400 in expenses. By early November, every boat in stock had been sold and there were pending 25 back orders. Defendants then requested plaintiff to go back on the road again, but he refused and claimed there was no one else to sell to. Defendant Goetz terminated their relationship by letter dated November 20, 1967. Plaintiff had received a total salary of $3,100 from defendants who never reimbursed him for his expenses and refused to show him their books and records to enable plaintiff to prove sales of boats and profits during the period he was in the defendants’ employ. Plaintiff then filed suit for breach of an oral contract. A trial by jury was held at which plaintiff was able to show he was owed the sum of $5,805. There was no dispute that defendants continued to do business with the dealerships which plaintiff had established. At the' close of plaintiff’s case and at the close of all the evidence, defendants made motions for directed verdict which were denied. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $15,900 and the court entered final judgment thereon. Defendants appealed and allege that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict.

After a careful review of the record, we find there is sufficient evidence to sustain the findings of the jury which apparently found that there was an oral contract between the parties and, therefore the judgment must be and hereby is affirmed. See 2 Fla.Jur. Appeals § 345 (1963).

Affirmed.