alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit      32**

|  | (1) | the                10-QSB/A 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 10-QSB/A Report fairly presents, in                all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                Firstgold. |
|--|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|    Dated:                January 30, 2007   Dated:                January 30, 2007     | FIRSTGOLD                CORP.  /s/                A. SCOTT                DOCKTER                                                     A.                Scott Dockter, President and Chief Executive Officer  /s/                JAMES                KLUBER                                                                             James                Kluber, Chief Financial Officer    |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-1188EA

_____________

Howard Wayne Jones, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas *

Department of Correction, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

_____________

 Submitted: January 22, 1998

Filed: February 3, 1998

_____________

Before FAGG, BRIGHT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

The court grants Howard Wayne Jones a certificate of appealability allowing an

appeal from the district court's denial of Jones's fourth petition for a writ of habeas

corpus. Because Jones attacks the execution of his state sentence, we consider Jones's

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In our view, briefing by the parties will serve no

useful purpose and we now turn to the merits of Jones's appeal. Having considered the

record, we conclude Jones's contention that he is eligible for parole notwithstanding

three earlier felony convictions when he pleaded guilty in 1979 is without merit. See

Schwindling v. Smith, 777 F.2d 431, 432-33 (8th Cir. 1985); Watson v. State, 609
-2-

S.W.2d 673, 674 (Ark. Ct. App. 1980). Even if we consider Jones's petition under 28

U.S.C. § 2254, we would reject his appeal because the district court correctly

dismissed his petition for abuse of the writ.

We thus deny Jones's motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the judgment

of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# Iowa_county_differentials_2024-
20010

#### State v. Gomes

Affirmed
Exhibit 32.3

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Alan
Vituli, Chief Executive Officer of Carrols Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended January 3, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ ALAN VITULI                                  
|Alan Vituli                                      
|Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|March 9, 2010
EXHIBIT (24) 2
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

The  undersigned,  as Executive  Vice President and Chief  Financial  Officer of
Central  and  South  West   Corporation  (the   "Corporation"),   hereby  makes,
constitutes and appoints E. R. Brooks and Lawrence B. Connors,  and each of them
severally,  his true and lawful  attorneys-in-fact  and  agents,  each with full
power and authority (acting alone and without the others) to execute in the name
and on behalf of the undersigned,  in any and all capacities,  the Corporation's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for 1998 and any and all  amendments  thereto,  to be
filed under the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  as  amended,  and any other
documents and  instruments  incidental  thereto,  and to file the same, with all
exhibits thereto and all documents in connection therewith,  with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, hereby granting to such attorneys-in-fact,  and agents,
and each of them, full power and authority of substitution and revocation in the
premises  and full power and  authority to do and perform each and every act and
thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully for
all intents  and  purposes  as the  undersigned  might or could do in person and
hereby ratifying and confirming all that such  attorneys-in-fact  and agents, or
any of them, may do or cause to be done by virtue of this Power of Attorney.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  I have hereunto  executed this Power of Attorney this 20th
day of January, 1999.


                                       /s/ Glenn D. Rosilier
                                           Glenn D. Rosilier
                                           Executive Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer


Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th day of January, 1999.



                                       /s/ Judy A. Hall
                                           Notary Public

My Commission Expires:      7-20-1999
# EUR-Lex - 22000D0010 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 22000D0010

**Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 10/2000 of 28 January 2000 amending Annex VI (Social security) to the EEA Agreement **

*
Official Journal L 103 , 12/04/2001 P. 0020 - 0021 *

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee

No 10/2000

of 28 January 2000

amending Annex VI (social security) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adjusted by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement", and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Annex VI to the Agreement was amended by Decision No 81/1999 of the EEA Joint Committee of 25 June 1999(1).

(2) Decision No 171 of 9 December 1998 amending Decision No 135 of 1 July 1987 concerning the granting of benefits in kind provided for in Article 17(7) and Article 60(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 and the concepts of urgency within the meaning of Article 20 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and of extreme urgency within the meaning of Article 17(7) and Article 60(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72(2), adopted by the Administrative Commission on Social Security for Migrant Workers is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Point 3.26 (Decision No 135) in Annex VI to the Agreement shall be amended as follows:

1. The following indent shall be added: "- 399 D 0370: Decision No 171 of 9 December 1998 (OJ L 143, 8.6.1999, p. 11)."

2. The adaptations, including the introductory sentence, shall be deleted.

Article 2

The texts of Decision No 171 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, which are annexed to the respective language versions of this Decision, are authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 29 January 2000, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee(3).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 28 January 2000.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

F. Barbaso

(1) OJ L 296, 23.11.2000, p. 37.

(2) OJ L 143, 8.6.1999, p. 11.

(3) No constitutional requirements indicated.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JAMES R. SEARS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-1399

[September 1, 2022]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Lawrence M. Mirman, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 562010CF002499A.

James R. Sears, Century, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### State v. Calderwood

18423

9/09/96

Affirmed
20423

#### State v. Mendoza

Affirmed
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Brian E. Dearing, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of ARINetwork Services, Inc., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ARI NetworkServices, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the smallbusiness issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the smallbusiness issuer and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the small businessissuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the smallbusiness issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
Dated: June 14, 2004 /s/ Brian E. DearingBrian E. DearingChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection
with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Equus Total Return, Inc. (the “Fund”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2019 (the “Report”), I, L’Sheryl D. Hudson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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





Dated: November 13, 2019





|EQUUS TOTAL RETURN, INC.   
|---------------------------
|                           
|/s/
    L’Sheryl D. Hudson 
|L’Sheryl
    D. Hudson     
|Chief
    Financial Officer
Ms. Rachel E. Dickon 

Secretary 

Federal Maritime Commission 

800 North Capitol St NW 

Washington, DC 20573 

Sent via email to secretary@fmc.gov 

United States 

USDA 

-

Department of Agriculture 

Office of the Secretary 

Washington, D.C. 20250 

JUL - 6 2018 

RE: Southern States Chassis Pool Agreement, FMC Agreement No. 201262 

Dear Ms. Dickon: 

Please accept this letter as official comment on Federal Register notice published on June 25, 2018, 

regarding the Southern States Chassis Pool Agreement, FMC Agreement No. 201262, filed by the 

Georgia Ports Authority and South Carolina Ports Authority. The U.S. Department of Agriculture 

is writing in support of this agreement. 

Chassis are critical components of moving cargo by truck, and ease of locating and utilizing chassis 

is particularly vital for agriculture freight movements, considering the decentralized nature of the 

industry's shipments. Agricultural shippers often vocalize that their challenges finding chassis 

increase transportation costs and decrease supply chain efficiencies. Since ocean carriers began 

divesting their chassis assets in 2009 and 2010, the supply of chassis has been dispersed among 

multiple suppliers and chassis pools, leaving shippers and carriers with a suboptimal and costly 

system for moving their payloads to ports and inland customers alike. Many agricultural shippers 

and trucking companies have expressed the need for a chassis "grey pool" approach as a more 

reliable regional equipment management system and a more efficient method of chassis positioning. 

Such approach will be beneficial for the agriculture industry in the Southeast. According to PIERS 

data, in 2017, the Port of Charleston, South Carolina, handled over 49,000 truckloads of 

containerized agricultural exports, and over 17,000 truckloads of containerized agricultural imports. 

The po1i of Savannah, Georgia, handled over 112,000 truckloads of containerized agricultural 

exports, and nearly 52,000 truckloads of containerized agricultural imports. 

This agreement will improve the flow and reduce the transportation costs born by shippers to and 

from these critical deepwater po1is, as well as to and from inland origins and destinations throughout 

the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, North Carolina and Tennessee. According 

to USDA' s Economic Research Service analysis of fann receipts, agricultural expo1is for these six 

states amounted to over$ I 3 billion in 2016. A significant portion of these agricultural exports were 

containerized, thereby relying on chassis for movement to and through the maritime ports of 

Charleston and Savannah. 

An Equal Opportunity Employer 
Ms. Rachel E. Dickon 

Page2 

Agriculture is a vital economic driver in this region of the country, and any improvements to the 

efficiency and reliability in transporting farm products will greatly benefit our nation's producers. 

Accordingly, USDA supports the Southern States Chassis Pool Agreement, FMC Agreement No. 

201262. 

Under Secretary 

Marketing and Regulatory Programs
#### Mary BUZIANIS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BENEFICIAL HOMES, INC., a Utah Corporation, and Ronald Gibb, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 14257.

Supreme Court of Utah.

May 24, 1976.

E. Nordell Weeks and Ted Boyer, of McMillan & Browning, Salt Lake City, for defendants and appellants.

Edward A. Watson, Tooele County Atty., Tooele, for plaintiff and respondent."

HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from a judgment on a promissory note. Affirmed with costs to plaintiff.

Defendants say the trial court erred 1) in excluding certain evidence of damages, 2) failing to credit a check asserted to be part payment on the note, 3) recognizing a stipulation of the parties because allegedly it was ambiguous, and 4) in approving an asserted unproved, unreasonable attorney’s fee.

This action has to do with the sale of lots by plaintiff to defendants in exchange for an installment promissory note.

As to 1) : The record reflects that Gibb had given checks that had been credited on one project, which conclusion was evidenced on the checks themselves, and were not allocable to the transaction, the subject of this legislation.

As to 2): At the initial hearing on June 9, 1975, the plaintiff, by counsel, and defendant Gibb, personally stipulated that judgment might be entered according to the prayer of plaintiff’s complaint, with an opportunity, however, given to defendant, Gibb, by July 14 (about seven weeks hence), *to produce evidence*of any credit to which he might be entitled, which had not been conceded. He offered evidence of claimed credit, which the trial court held inadmissible, as .being inapplicable, which holding was fully justified. Even so, the court, having entered judgment as prayed, nonetheless gave Gibb another week, until July 21, to produce further evidence that Gibb suggested he could procure. He failed to show up at this last of a series of hearings and opportunities to show a defense, and there is no merit, under the circumstances that it was error to burden Gibb with a showing of facts for which he asked permission to obtain.

As to 3): The stipulation may have been a bit inarticulate, but it was perfectly understandable and was obviously allowed at Gibb’s behest and for his benefit, so that in fairness he cannot attack it now.

As to 4) : The amount found due on the note was $6,681, and the fee awarded was one-third thereof, — which was not unreasonable, particularly because the service *175in this case substantially was in excess of the ordinary service in reducing a promissory note to judgment in an amount admittedly to have become in default, although unsuccessfully questioned to some extent. Gibb stipulated that judgment could be entered as prayed, which included.the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded, subject only to the granting of time to present proof of credits claimed, and Gibb’s failure to respond precludes him from contesting the same.

ELLETT, TUCKETT, CROCKETT and MAUGHAN, JJ., concur.
# FILED

July 16, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE MAY 1998 SESS ION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Appellee, ) No. 03C01-9707-CC-00238

) ) Blount County v. ) ) Honorable D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., Judge ) EUGENE McCARTER, ) (Probation revocation) ) Appellant. )
For the Appellant : For the Appellee : Mack Garner John Knox Walkup District Public Defender Attorney General of Tennessee 419 High Street and Maryville, TN 378

04 Michael J. Fahey, II Assistant Attorney Gener al of Tennessee 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493 Michael L. Flynn District Attorney General and Edward P. Bailey, Jr. Assistant District A

ttorney General Blount County Courthouse 363 High Street Maryville, TN 378

04

OPINION FILED:____________________

AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO R ULE 20 Joseph M. Tipton Judge2 O P I N I O N

The defendant, Eugene McCarter, appeal s as of right from the Blount County Circuit Cour

t’s revocation of his pr

obation. He argues that the trial court erred by revoking his

probation. We disagree.

The defend ant was

convic ted on De cember 5 , 1994, u pon the e ntry of a guilty plea to the offense of sell ing more than one-half ounce nor mor e than ten pounds of marijuana, a Class E felony. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a Range I, standard offender to two years to be suspended after serving six months in the county jail. On June 9, 1995, a probation violation warrant was issued, and the defenda nt’s probation was revoke

d on July 25, 1995, follow ing a probation revoca tion hearing. The defendant was released again on December 12, 1995. Another probat ion violation warrant was iss ued on June 21, 1996.

At the revocation hearing, Stan Miller, the defendant’s probation o fficer, testified that the defendant ad mitted to him that he used alcohol while on probation. He said that the defendant voluntari ly went for detoxific ation treatment but that the defendant left after a few days. He s tated that on June 6, the defendant was arrested for public intoxication. He stated that the defendant failed to r eport to him after June 5, failed to maintain suitable employ ment, and failed to complete community service. At the hearing, the defendant admitted that he drank beer while on pr obation and that he failed to report to his probation officer. The trial court revoked the defendant’s probation and ordered the defendant to se rve his sentence.

After full consideration of the rec ord, the briefs, and the law governing the issues presented, we ar e of the opinion that the evidence justifies the revocation and that no error of law ex

ists that would req uire a reversal. Ther efore, we determine that3

the judgment

of the trial

court shoul d be affirmed pur suant to Rul e 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. App.
Joseph M. Tipton, Judge

CONCUR:

Joe G. Riley, Judge

Curwood Witt, Judge