alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
 
 Certification
 
 
 I, Dominique Sergent, certify that:
 
 1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MC Shipping Inc. (the Registrant);2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual 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-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and have;a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;b)

valuated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the Evaluation Date); andc)

presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;5.

The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarise and report financial data and have identified for the Registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; andb)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal controls; and6.

The Registrants other certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 March 19, 2004
 
 Dominique SergentChief Financial Officer
#### Gary W. BIZAL v. Harry CONNICK, Orleans Parish District Attorney.

No. 86-C-1092.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 20, 1986.

Reconsideration Denied July 1,1986.

In re Bizal, Gary W.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-4951; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “K”, No. 85-12469.

Prior report: La.App., 489 So.2d 343.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., and CALOGERO, J., would grant the writ.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ronnie S. WOODS.

No. 86-K-2340.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re Woods, Ronnie S.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 18187-KA; Parish of DeSoto, 11th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 56761.

Prior report: La.App., 497 So.2d 1088.

Denied.
Exhibit 24.1
                            LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE  PRESENTS that Robert  Brennan has made,  constituted  and
appointed,  and by these  presents  does make,  constitute  and  appoint  Dennis
Surovcik, as his true and lawful attorney for me and in my name, place and stead
giving and granting unto said attorney above-named,  full power and authority to
do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite and necessary to
be done in and about the premises as fully,  to all intents and  purposes,  as I
might or could do if personally  present,  with full power of  substitution  and
revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that he my said attorney, or his
substitute shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof as follows:

TO SIGN AND FILE WITH THE  SECURITIES  AND  EXCHANGE  COMMISSION  ON MY  BEHALF,
MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATIONS, INC.'S FORM 10-KSB FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
JUNE 30, 1998.

IN  WITNESS  THEREOF,  I have  hereunto  set my hand and seal  this  20th day of
October, 1998.


   /s/ Robert Brennan
     Robert Brennan   PA Dr Lic 11540362

STATE OF   Florida

COUNTY OF  Palm Beach

Subscribed and sworn to before me by the said Robert  Brennan,  this 20th day of
October, 1998.

/s/ Bertha M. Mcogg
Notary Public in and for the
State of Florida
My commission exp. Jan. 7, 2000

                            LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Mathew  Crimmins has made,  constituted  and
appointed,  and by these  presents does make,  constitute  and appoint  Dennis A
Surovcik, as his true and lawful attorney for me and in my name, place and stead
giving and granting unto said attorney above-named,  full power and authority to
do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever requisite and necessary to
be done in and about the premises as fully,  to all intents and  purposes,  as I
might or could do if personally  present,  with full power of  substitution  and
revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that he my said attorney, or his
substitute shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof as follows:

TO SIGN AND FILE WITH THE  SECURITIES  AND  EXCHANGE  COMMISSION  ON MY  BEHALF,
MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATIONS, INC.'S FORM 10-KSB FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
JUNE 30, 1998.

IN  WITNESS  THEREOF,  I have  hereunto  set my hand and seal  this  22nd day of
October, 1998.

/s/ Mathew A. Crimmins
  Mathew Crimmins

STATE OF  Massachusetts

COUNTY OF Middlesex

Subscribed and sworn to before me by the said Mathew Crimmins,  this 22nd day of
October, 1998.

 /s/ Leighton Scheffy
Notary Public in and for the
State of Massachusetts
My commission expires Jan. 3, 2003
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

In the interest of M.N.C. * From the 106 th District Court

and J.J.C. Jr. , children, of Gaines County,

Trial Court No. 17

- 04

- 17541

.

No. 11

- 18

- 00248

- CV * October 4 , 2018

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal

is dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7543

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHARAZZ KEVIN MORAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior

District Judge. (7:06-cr-00051-jct-1; 7:08-cv-80054-jct-mfu)

Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 6, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charazz Kevin Moran, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charazz Kevin Moran seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Moran has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny his motion for appointment of counsel and a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
#### Jose Luis GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-912.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 29, 1986.

Jose Luis Gonzalez, in pro. per.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and JOR-GENSON, JJ.

*101PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Harich v. State,*484 So.2d 1239 (Fla.1986).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Docket ID: DOD-2012-OS-0031]
          - 32 CFR Part 322

# AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, DoD.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule with request for comments; correction.

# SUMMARY:

On March 16, 2012 (77 FR 15595-15596), Department of Defense published a direct final rule titled Privacy Act; Implementation. This rule corrects the paragraph identification in the added text.

# DATES:

This rule is effective on May 25, 2012.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia Toppings, (571) 372-0485.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On March 16, 2012, Department of Defense published a direct final rule titled Privacy Act; Implementation. Subsequent to the publication of that direct final rule, Department of Defense discovered that paragraphs (l)(2) through (l)(5) in § 322.7 should have read paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(4).

## Correction

In the direct final rule (FR Doc. 2012-6170) published on March 16, 2012 (77 FR 15595-15596), make the following corrections:

§ 322.7 

On page 15596, in § 322.7, in the second column, paragraphs (l)(2) through (l)(5) are corrected to read paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(4).

Dated: March 26, 2012.

Aaron Siegel,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2012-7596 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
#### Junior McPHERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-2226.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 31, 1988.

Rehearing Denied Mandate Stayed Oct. 5, 1988.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Margaret Good, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert S. Jaegers, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of *State v. Avery,*531 So.2d 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., and WARNER, MARTHA C., Associate Judge, concur.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of U.S. Premium Beef, LLC (the Company) onForm 10-Q for the period ended November 28, 2009 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott J. Miller,Chief Reporting and Compliance Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that: 

     (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

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

|   |   |                                                                                     |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| By:    |   | /s/ Scott J. Miller                                                                      |
|   |   |                                                                                     |
|   |   | Scott J. Miller*Chief Financial Officer*

*(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

Date: January 8, 2010
EXHIBIT
31.1




CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO RULE 13-14 OR RULE 15-14 OF THE SECURITIES


AND
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I,
Mulugetta Bezzabeh, Phd, certify that:


1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Diamond
Entertainment Corporation;
  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 small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
  4. I am
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))
for the small business issuer and have:
  a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report
is being prepared;
  b)
Omitted;
  c)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my
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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and
  5. I have
disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the
audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control
over financial reporting.


Date:
September 5, 2008


By: /s/
Mulugetta Bezzabeh, Phd


Mulugetta
Bezzabeh, Phd


Principal Executive
Officer
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**757 CA 13-00402**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, CARNI, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

DAVID M. REYNOLDS, CLAIMANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT. (CLAIM NO. 106738.)

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (JONATHAN D. HITSOUS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT.

BURKWIT LAW FIRM, PLLC, ROCHESTER (CHARLES F. BURKWIT OF COUNSEL), FOR CLAIMANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Appeal and cross appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Nicholas V. Midey, Jr., J.), entered November 5, 2012. The judgment awarded claimant money damages after a nonjury trial.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Claimant commenced this action seeking damages arising from injuries he allegedly sustained when New York State Troopers used excessive force against him during a traffic stop. The Court of Claims bifurcated the trial and found in favor of claimant on the issue of liability, i.e., that the use of force constituted an assault and battery against claimant. Defendant now appeals and claimant cross-appeals from a judgment awarding claimant money damages after the trial on damages.

Contrary to claimant’s contention, the court’s determination that the assault was not a proximate cause of claimant’s lumbar spine injuries is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence ( see Treat v Wegmans Food Mkts., Inc. , 46 AD3d 1403, 1404-1405). The court determined that claimant suffered a closed head injury and herniated discs in his cervical spine as a result of the assault, and awarded claimant $225,000 for past pain and suffering and $475,000 for future pain and suffering. Contrary to the contentions of claimant and defendant, the award for past and future pain and suffering does not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation ( see CPLR 5501 [c]; Ellis v Emerson , 57 AD3d 1435, 1437).

Claimant further contends that the award of $300,000 for future**-2- 757 CA 13-00402** 

medical expenses should be increased to cover treatment for his lumbar spine injuries, closed head injury and resulting symptoms, and emotional issues. Inasmuch as the court did not err in concluding that the lumbar spine injuries were not a proximate result of the assault, we conclude that the court did not err in failing to award future medical expenses for those injuries. With respect to the closed head injury and emotional issues, we conclude that claimant failed to establish with the requisite reasonable certainty that he would require future medical expenses to treat those injuries ( see Huff v Rodriguez , 45 AD3d 1430, 1433; Faas v State of New York , 249 AD2d 731, 732).

Entered: June 20, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS EXHIBIT CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL DATA INFORMATION FROM THE REGISTRANT'S
AUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 27, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THIS
EXHIBIT  SHALL NOT BE DEEMED FILED FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 11 OF THE  SECURITIES
ACT OF 1933 AND SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITIES  EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, OR OTHERWISE
SUBJECT TO THE LIABILITY OF SUCH SECTIONS,  NOR SHALL IT BE DEEMED A PART OF ANY
OTHER FILING  UNLESS SUCH OTHER FILING  EXPRESSLY  INCORPORATES  THIS EXHIBIT BY
REFERENCE.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1999
<CASH>                                           3,055
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,434
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,453
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,563
<PP&E>                                          77,463
<DEPRECIATION>                                (19,457)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,525
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,215
<BONDS>                                         31,513
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,373
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,525
<SALES>                                        140,294
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               141,159
<CGS>                                           39,960
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  125,952
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,415
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,604
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,188
<INCOME-TAX>                                        50
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,138
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                          168
<NET-INCOME>                                       970
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09


</TABLE>
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-28314 

02-MAY-2011 

10:52 AM 

SCWC-28314
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

CHUNG MI AHN,


Respondent/Claimant/Appellant/Appellee-Appellee,
 

vs.
 

LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,


Petitioner/Respondent/Appellee/Appellant-Cross-Appellee,
 

and
 

J.P. SCHMIDT, Insurance Commissioner,


Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs,


Respondent/Appellee/Appellee-Cross-Appellant.
 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
 

(CIVIL NO. 05-1-2265)
 

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
 1
 (By: McKenna, J., for the court )


Petitioner/Respondent/Appellee/Appellant-Cross-Appellee
 

Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company’s application for writ of
 

1 Considered by: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ., and


Circuit Judge Chang, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused. 

certiorari, filed on April 13, 2011, is accepted and will be
 

scheduled for consolidated oral arguments with SCWC-28315, Kim v.
 

Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and J.P. Schmidt, Insurance
 

Commissioner, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. The
 

parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding
 

scheduling.
 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, May 2, 2011. 

FOR THE COURT:
 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
 

Associate Justice
 

MATSUI, CHUNG & IKEHARA


Randall Y.S. Chung


James H. Monma, for


Petitioner/Respondent/Appellee/AppellantCross-Appellee, Liberty Mutual


Fire Insurance Company