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

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Brian C. Harriss, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of North Atlantic Holding Company, 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 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 we 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
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 controls 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: May 15, 2006



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Brian C. Harriss
|Name:                |  | Brian C. Harriss       
|Title:               |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Keith A. LONG.

No. 87-KK-0805.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1987.

In re Long, Keith A.; applying for writ of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus; Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court, Div. “E”, No. 161-662; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. KW87 0165.

Denied. The Court notes that defendant cannot be required to serve more than 6 months under any circumstances. See C.Cr.P. art. 493.1.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 258

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of Agriculture and

the Secretary of Health and Human Services should work to improve

cooperation and eliminate duplication in the area of food safety inspection, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 1, 2001

Mr. SMITH of Michigan (for himself, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr.

BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr. EHLERS, Mr.

LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. FLETCHER, Mr. GREENWOOD, Mr. MANZULLO,

Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. SHAYS, Ms. BROWN of Florida,

Mr. HOYER, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. PAUL, Mr. PITTS, Mr.

ROHRABACHER, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. KERNS, Mr.

FLAKE, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. ISSA, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. BLUMENAUER,

Mr. COX, Mr. WU, Mr. BARCIA, and Mr. CHABOT) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce,

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the

committee concerned

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Secretary

of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and Human

Services should work to improve cooperation and eliminate duplication in the area of food safety inspection,

and for other purposes.
2

•HCON 258 IH

Whereas the Nation’s relatively open borders present difficult

challenges to Federal agencies involved in food safety inspection;

Whereas strong concerns exist about the potential for deliberate or unintentional introduction of foodborne pathogens or toxic agents through the food chain;

Whereas the percentage of food imports that are examined

for health and safety needs to be increased;

Whereas to prevent and respond to potential contamination

of the Nation’s food supply, Federal food safety regulatory agencies need to be prepared to coordinate their

activities to act quickly and efficiently to protect the public health; and

Whereas the Department of Agriculture, through the Food

Safety Inspection Service and the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service, and the Department of Health

and Human Services, through the Food and Drug Administration, jointly share in the task of inspecting imported foods: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Health and

4 Human Services should—

5 (1) achieve the highest possible degree of co6 operation to ensure that the Nation’s consumers re7 ceive food that is safe; and

8 (2) take steps to ensure that the resources and

9 experience of all involved agencies are used as effi-
3

•HCON 258 IH

1 ciently as possible to maximize food inspection capa2 bilities, regardless of agency jurisdiction.

Æ
#### The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellant, v. Phillip Wesley BATES, Appellee.

No. O-80-139.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

May 6, 1981.

*384Andrew M. Coats, Dist. Atty., District Number Seven, Ted A. Richardson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Oklahoma City, for appellant.

BUSSEY, Judge:

From a ruling of the District Court of Oklahoma County holding unconstitutional a portion of 21 O.S.1971, § 751 the State of Oklahoma has perfected an appeal upon a reserved question of law pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.1980, § 1053.1.

The statute, 21 O.S.1971, § 751, with which we are concerned provides:

> Every person who, with premeditated design to injure another, inflicts upon his person any injury which disfigures his personal appearance or disables any member or organ of his body or seriously diminishes his physical vigor, is guilty of maiming.

Precisely, the trial court determined that a man of common understanding would not know what is meant by “... seriously diminishes his physical vigor...” and held that portion of Section 751 vague and thus, unconstitutional. We disagree.

As early as 1841, almost identical language was considered by our sister state of Arkansas1 in their maiming statute, that court observing:

> [O]ur statute .... declares maiming to consist “in unlawfully disabling a human being by depriving him of the use of a limb or member; or render him lame or defective in bodily vigor; by which we understand that the act being unlawful in itself, evidencing a malicious intent, it is immaterial by what means or with what instrument the injury is effected, provided the crime is consummated by depriving the party of the use of a limb or member of his body, or that the consequences of the injuries sustained render him either *permanently lame,*or by any means affect his bodily vigor by decreasing his strength, activity or the like.” (Court emphasis)

When 21 O.S.1971, § 751 is considered and read together with 21 O.S.1971, § 758, as it must be, the meaning thereof is not so vague as to leave a person of common understanding to guess at what is meant. Section 758 states:

> Where it appears, upon a trial for maiming another person, that the person injured has, before the time of trial, so far recovered from the wound that he is no longer by it disfigured in personal appearance, or disabled in any member or organ of his body, or affected in physical vigor, no conviction for maiming shall- be had; but the accused may be convicted of assault and battery, with or without a special intent, according to proof.

Title 21 O.S.1971, §§ 751 and 758, construed together, declare maiming to be the intentional injury to another whereby said injury or injuries permanently disfigure or disable, render lame or by any means seriously affect or diminish physical vigor by lessening or decreasing the victim’s strength, activity or the like.

Having thus laid down what we deem to be the true definition of the term maiming, we hereby REVERSE the order of the District Court of Oklahoma County heretofore entered.

1

. *Baker v. State, 4*Ark. 56.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 356

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington

Soap Box Derby.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 19, 2002

Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mrs. MORELLA, Ms. NORTON, Mr. WYNN, Mr.

MORAN of Virginia, and Mr. WOLF) submitted the following concurrent

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater

Washington Soap Box Derby.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SOAP BOX DERBY RACES

4 ON CAPITOL GROUNDS.

5 The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Associa6 tion (in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Association’’)

7 shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, soap box

8 derby races, on the Capitol Grounds on June 22, 2002,

9 or on such other date as the Speaker of the House of Rep-
2

•HCON 356 IH

1 resentatives and the Committee on Rules and Administra2 tion of the Senate may jointly designate.

3 SEC. 2. CONDITIONS.

4 The event to be carried out under this resolution shall

5 be free of admission charge to the public and arranged

6 not to interfere with the needs of Congress, under condi7 tions to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and

8 the Capitol Police Board; except that the Association shall

9 assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities

10 incident to all activities associated with the event.

11 SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

12 For the purposes of this resolution, the Association

13 is authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds, subject

14 to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, such stage,

15 sound amplification devices, and other related structures

16 and equipment as may be required for the event to be car17 ried out under this resolution.

18 SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

19 The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police

20 Board are authorized to make any such additional ar21 rangements that may be required to carry out the event

22 under this resolution.

23 SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

24 The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforce25 ment of the restrictions contained in section 4 of the Act
3

•HCON 356 IH

1 of July 31, 1946 (40 U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), con2 cerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations

3 on the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions appli4 cable to the Capitol Grounds, with respect to the event

5 to be carried out under this resolution.

Æ
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00471-CV

Cynthia Dawn FRANKLIN,

Appellant

v.

Jason Lee FRANKLIN,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-1926-CV

Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 21, 2012

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The trial court signed a final judgment on April 20, 2012. A timely motion for new trial 

was filed on May 21, 2012. TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(a). Because appellant timely filed her motion 

for new trial, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on July 19, 2012. See TEX. R. APP. P.

26.1(a). Appellant filed her notice of appeal on July 26, 2012. A motion for extension of time in 

which to file the notice of appeal was due on August 3, 2012, but was not filed. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 26.3. 
04-12-00471-CV

- 2 -

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good 

faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day 

grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. 

Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26); Dimotsis v. 

State Farm Lloyds, 966 S.W.2d 657, 657 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (stating same 

under current Rule 26). However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to 

file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C). 

Accordingly, on October 2, 2012, this court ordered appellant to file, no later than October 17, 

2012, a response presenting a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a 

timely manner. Our order informed appellant that if she failed to respond within the time 

provided, the appeal would be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). No response has been 

filed.

Because appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed and because she did not provide 

any explanation for needing an extension of time, this appeal is dismissed. See Verburgt, 959 

S.W.2d at 617.

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 311 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 311

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 28, 2002

        Received and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing the Civil Air Patrol for 60 years of service to the United 
                                States.

Whereas the Civil Air Patrol was established on December 1, 1941, in the Office 
        of Civilian Defense;
Whereas during World War II the volunteer units of the Civil Air Patrol 
        conducted search and rescue missions, provided air transportation for 
        military personnel and cargo, towed targets for the training of Army Air 
        Corps

gunners, and patrolled the coasts of the United States searching for enemy 
submarines;

Whereas by the end of World War II the Civil Air Patrol had flown more than 
        500,000 hours, sunk 2 German U-boats, and saved hundreds of crash 
        victims;
Whereas on July 1, 1946, the Civil Air Patrol was chartered by the United States 
        as a nonprofit, benevolent corporation;
Whereas on May 26, 1948, the Civil Air Patrol was permanently established as a 
        volunteer auxiliary of the United States Air Force;
Whereas since 1942 the cadet programs of the Civil Air Patrol have trained 
        approximately 750,000 youth, providing them with leadership and life 
        skills;
Whereas since 1942 the Civil Air Patrol has flown more than 1,000,000 hours of 
        search and rescue missions, saving several thousand lives; and
Whereas since 1951 the aerospace education programs of the Civil Air Patrol have 
        provided training and educational materials to more than 300,000 
        teachers, who have educated more than 8,000,000 students about 
        aerospace: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress recognizes the Civil Air Patrol for 60 years of service 
to the United States.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 28, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
##### 



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 Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended December 31,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), Rick R. Holley, as
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of his knowledge:



|    |                                                                                                                                                            
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements
    of Section 13(a) or Section 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: February 28, 2006



| |     |                   
| | --- | ------------------
| | By: | /s/ RICK R. HOLLEY

| |                                      
| | -------------------------------------
| |                                      
| | RICK R. HOLLEY                       
| | President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement
required by section 906 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer of GFI Group Inc.Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

In connection with theQuarterly Report of GFI Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thethree months ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Gooch,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

1.                 The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                 Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: May 10, 2010

 
| /s/ MICHAEL GOOCH         |     |
|---------------------------|----------|
| Michael Gooch             |     |
| *Chairman of the Board*   | * * |
| *Chief Executive Officer* | * * |

 

----
DENIED and Opinion Filed May 22, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00456-CV IN RE 1 COVENTRY COURT, LLC, MOSHE FELDHENDLER, AND LEAH FELDHEND LER, Relators Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-01541 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Nowell, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Nowell This original proceeding involves a cont empt order signed by the trial court on October 13, 2022. Because the parties are familiar with the underlying facts, we provide only those details necessary to dis pose of this original proceeding and issue this memorandum opinion. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.1. 1 Coventry Court, LLC a nd The Downs of Hillcrest Residential Association, Inc. entered into a settlement agreemen t on April 26, 2022 resolving disputes regarding property located at 1 Coventry Court. After rela tors failed to comply with the settlement and the final judgment signe d on June 30, 2022, the Association filed a motion for contempt. The trial court he ld a hearing and su bsequently signed a–2– contempt order on October 13, 2022 and orde red relators to pa y the Association $15,000 in fines. Contempt orders may be revi ewed by writ of mandamus. In re Braden , 483 S.W.3d 659, 662 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Di st.] 2015, orig. proceeding). A writ of mandamus issues to correct a clear abuse of discreti on when no adequate remedy by appeal exists. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); In re Autumn Ranch, LLC , No. 05-24-00255-CV, 2024 WL 1190480, at *1 (Tex. App.—D allas Mar. 20, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Relators raise four issues; however, we do not address the merits of their arguments because we conclude relators ’ petition is barred by laches. Although mandamus is not an equitable remedy, its i ssuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. In re Barnes , No. 05-22-00312-CV, 2022 WL 1955754, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 3, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). One such principle is that “equity aids the diligent and not those who slumber on their rights.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). T hus, delaying the filing of a petition for mandamus relief may waive the right to mandamus unless the relator can justify the delay. Id. “A delay of only a few months can constitute laches and result in denial of mandamus relief.” Id. ; see also Autumn Ranch, LLC , 2024 WL 1190480, at *1 (denying petition because of ten-month delay); In re Users Sys. Servs., Inc. , 22 S.W.3d 331, 337 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceed ing) (concluding seven-month delay precluded mandamus relief).–3– Here, the trial court signed the cont empt order on Oct ober 13, 2022, yet relators did not file a petition for mandamu s until May 15, 2023. Relators provide no explanation for the seven- month delay in seeking manda mus relief. Accordingly, we conclude that relators’ unreasonable dela y bars their right to mandamus relief. We deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

230456F.P05 /Erin A. Nowell / ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE