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

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this
Quarterly  Report  on  Form 10-Q  for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 fully
complies  with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act  of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report
fairly  presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of  operations  of  the  Company.

This 9th day of November, 2007.

/s/ R. Daniel Blanton
---------------------
R. Daniel Blanton
President &
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal executive officer)

 /s/ Darrell R. Rains
---------------------
Darrell R. Rains
Group Vice President &
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal financial officer)


                                      31
EXHIBIT 31.2
 
 
 RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   
 I, Blaise B. Bettendorf, certify that:
 I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Summit Financial Corporation; 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; 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; 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 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: March 17, 2004
/s/ Blaise B. BettendorfBlaise B. Bettendorf, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0463

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JUSTIN DALLAS PETERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to 

produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter Deidre Taber is 

granted an extension of time to and including February 2, 2022, within 

which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested on appeal. 

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court 

and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 20 2021

12/20/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0463
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 96-3499SI

_____________

Raymond W. Aswegan, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Captain Bruhl; Lieutenant * Appeal from the United States

Birdsell; C/O Gary Rea; C/O * District Court for the

Roush; Lieutenant Bowden; Roger * Southern District of Iowa.

Lawson; Charles Harper; *

*

Defendants, *

*

John Emmett, *

*

Defendant-Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: February 12, 1997

 Filed: May 2, 1997

_____________

Before FAGG, HEANEY, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges.

_____________

FAGG, Circuit Judge.

Raymond W. Aswegan, a life sentence inmate at the Iowa State

Penitentiary (ISP), brought this lawsuit contending his prison

infirmary cell lacks cable television reception in violation of the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-

12213 (1994). The district court ruled in Aswegan’s favor and

ordered John Emmett, the ISP security director, to install a cable

television outlet in Aswegan’s cell. Emmett appeals, and we

reverse.
-2-

Although general population inmates are permitted to purchase

television sets that can be connected to the cable television

outlets in their cells, infirmary inmates who own televisions lack

this amenity because the infirmary cells were designed without

cable television hookups. Instead, infirmary inmates entertain

themselves by watching television in the infirmary’s community room

where two cable-equipped televisions (with ample headphones) are

available on a daily basis. As we understand the situation,

“[c]able service is necessary for adequate television reception at

[the] ISP.” More v. Farrier, 984 F.2d 269, 270 (8th Cir. 1993).

Under the ADA, no qualified individual with a disability can

be denied “the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of

a public entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Despite the fact that

Aswegan is ambulatory and his cell is hardly fifty feet from the

infirmary’s communal television room, the district court decided

Aswegan was a qualified disabled person who was denied the benefits

of cable television because he routinely lost petty disputes about

channel selections with the other infirmary inmates. Believing the

ADA applies to the ISP and entitles Aswegan to have unlimited

access to the television programs of his choice, the district court

ordered the installation of a cable television outlet in Aswegan’s

cell.

Contrary to the district court’s view, Aswegan has no viable

claim for relief under section 12132 because the cable television

sought by Aswegan is not a public service, program, or activity

within the contemplation of the ADA. We thus reverse the district

court’s holding that Aswegan was entitled to access to cable

television beyond that already provided in the infirmary’s

television room. Because the relief Aswegan seeks is not covered

by section 12132, we need not decide, and the district court should
-3-

not have decided, whether correctional facilities are subject to

the ADA.

We thus reverse the decision of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2010328EN.01000401.xml

| 4.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Criminal proceedings against Vítor Manuel dos Santos Palhota, Mário de Moura Gonçalves, Fernando Luis das Neves Palhota, Termiso Limitada

(Case C-515/08) (1)

1

(Freedom to provide services - Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU - Posting of workers - Restrictions - Employers established in another Member State - Registration of prior declaration of posting - Social or labour documents - Equivalent to those provided for under the law of the host Member State - Copy - Keeping available to the national authorities)

2010/C 328/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

Parties in the main proceedings

Parties in the main proceedings

Vítor Manuel dos Santos Palhota, Mário de Moura Gonçalves, Fernando Luis das Neves Palhota, Termiso Limitada

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC — National legislation requiring construction sector undertakings carrying out works in a Member State on a temporary basis to provide a declaration of posting to the authorities in the host country

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU preclude national legislation requiring an employer, established in another Member State and posting workers to the territory of the first Member State, to send a prior declaration of posting, in so far as the employer must be notified of a registration number for the declaration before the planned posting may take place and the national authorities of that first State have a period of five working days from receipt of the declaration to issue that notification.

Articles 56 TFEU and 57 TFEU do not preclude national legislation requiring an employer, established in another Member State and posting workers to the territory of the first Member State, to keep available to the national authorities of the latter, during the posting, copies of documents equivalent to the social or labour documents required under the law of the first Member State and also to send those copies to the authorities at the end of that period.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

1

---
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONI, David Cohn, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Milestone Scientific Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’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 oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date:  April 2, 2007                                     /s/ David Cohn.   David Cohn   Chief Financial Officer
AMENDMENT TO THE WILLIAM D. GEHL/GEHL COMPANY
                   AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                         DATED AS OF DECEMBER 15, 1995.


     THIS AMENDMENT is made by and between Gehl Company ("GEHL"), a Wisconsin
corporation with its principal place of business in West Bend, Wisconsin, and
William D. Gehl, ("Executive") as of December 18, 1998.

                                    RECITALS

     WHEREAS, GEHL wishes to continue to retain the services of Executive as
its Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer and Executive
desires to continue to serve GEHL in that capacity; and

     WHEREAS, GEHL and Executive wish to amend the Employment Agreement
between the parties dated as of December 19, 1997.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements
set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:

     Section 2, Term of Employment, shall be revised to read as follows: 
Executive's "term of employment," as this phrase is used throughout this
Agreement, shall be for the period commencing January 1, 1999, and ending on
December 31, 2001.

     Section 3, Compensation, shall be revised to read as follows:  GEHL shall
pay or cause to be paid to Executive during the period commencing January 1,
1999, through the end of the term of employment a minimum base salary of Three
Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000.00) per annum, payable in twenty-six
(26) equal installments (subject to the appropriate withholding items).  This
salary shall be reviewed at least annually by the GEHL Board of Directors or a
committee thereof and increased or decreased in its discretion, subject to the
minimum above.

     Section 9, Stock Option, shall be revised to read as follows:  Concurrent
with the execution of this Amendment Agreement, Executive and GEHL entered
into a Stock Option Agreement, specifically referenced herein and made a part
hereof, wherein Executive was granted, as of December 18, 1998, an option to
purchase twenty-five thousand (25,000) shares of GEHL common stock under the
1995 Stock Option Plan.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GEHL has caused this Agreement to be executed by its
duly authorized officers, and Executive has hereunto set his hand, all as of
the date set forth above.

                                          GEHL COMPANY

                                          ___________________________________
                                          Its Director

                                          ___________________________________
                                          Executive
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,255,578
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,826,319
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,628,538
<PP&E>                                       2,034,030
<DEPRECIATION>                                 960,903
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,742,172
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,984,571
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,081
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,745,520
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,742,172
<SALES>                                     14,746,965
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,746,965
<CGS>                                        8,740,943
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,740,943
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,723,082
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,282,940
<INCOME-TAX>                                   844,674
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,438,266
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,438,266
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12


</TABLE>
[Cite as State ex rel. Newell v. Fuerst , 2012-Ohio-3697.] 

# Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98198



## STATE EX REL. EMANUEL NEWELL

RELATOR

vs.


## JUDGE NANCY A. FUERST

RESPONDENT



### JUDGMENT: WRITS DENIED

Writs of Mandamus and Procedendo Motion No. 454755

Order No. 456990

RELEASE DATE: August 14, 2012RELATOR

Emanuel Newell No. A206453 Allen Correctional Institution Attention C-Unit 2338 North West Street Lima, Ohio 45802

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

William D. Mason, Esq. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss, Esq. Assistant County Prosecutor 8 th Floor, Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113JAMES J. SWEENEY, J.:

{¶1} On April 10, 2012, the relator, Emanuel Newell, commenced this

mandamus and procedendo action against Judge William Mahon 1 to compel the judge to

rule on two motions — (1) Motion to compel as for contempt in disobeying judgment and

(2) Motion to vacate journal entry filed 12-2-88 — which Newell filed in late 2011 in the

underlying case, State v. Newell, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-226066. On May 3, 2012, the

respondent judge, through the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, moved for summary

judgment on the grounds of mootness. Attached to the dispositive motion was a

certified copy of a May 1, 2012 journal entry which denied both motions. Newell

never filed a response. Because the May 1, 2012 journal entry establishes that Newell

has received his requested relief, rulings on the subject motions, this writ action is moot.

{¶2} Relator also did not comply with R.C. 2969.25(C) which requires that an

inmate file a certified statement from his prison cashier setting forth the balance in his

private account for each of the preceding six months. This also is sufficient reason to

1 The original respondent was former judge William Mahon. In a prior entry, this court recognized that presiding Judge Nancy A. Fuerst is the assigned judge to the underlying case and instructed the clerk to substitute Judge Nancy Fuerst as the respondent and to change the caption in this action accordingly. See Civ.R.25(D).deny the writs, deny indigency status, and assess costs against the relator. State ex rel.

Pamer v. Collier , 108 Ohio St.3d 492, 2006-Ohio-1507, 844 N.E.2d 842.

{¶3} Accordingly, this court grants the respondent’s motion for summary

judgment and denies the application for writs of procedendo and mandamus. Relator to

pay costs. This court directs the clerk of court to serve all parties with notice of this

judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶4} Writs denied.

JAMES J. SWEENEY, JUDGE

MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR
ERIC E. BALCOM

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 1400

_________ ____________________/

Opinion filed December 9, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Dawn Caloca

- Johnson , Judge

. Eric E. Balcom, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The o rder denying the appellant’s petition seeking to file a belated motion

for postconviction relief is reversed. The case is remanded for an evidentiary

hearing to determine the validity of the appellant’s claim that counsel failed to file

a timely postconvic tion motion

, without prejudice to the state’s right to raise the

defense of laches. See Strong v. State , 851 So. 2d 758, 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)(concluding that the burden was on the state to establish laches as a defense to an

otherwise timely petition se eking to file a belated postconviction motion); Sanchez

v. State , 848 So. 2d 1253, 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“If the State has a basis on

which to dispute the defendant’s entitle ment to a belated filing under [r] ule

3.850(b)(3), then there must be a hearing on that issue.”).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LEWIS, C.J., VAN NORTWICK, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.

2
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-2225

___________________________

Yahui Song, Ph.D.

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Regents of the University of Minnesota; L. James Nixon, M.D.; Barbara K.

Patrick, M.D.; Sheila M. Specker, M.D.; Theodore R. Thompson, M.D.; Kathleen

V. Watson, M.D.; John Does 1-15

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

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

The Rutherford Institute

lllllllllllllllllllllAmicus on Behalf of Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: April 2, 2013

Filed: April 5, 2013 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________
PER CURIAM.

Yahui Song appeals the judgment of the District Court1

 granting defendants’

motion to dismiss her civil action under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure after she failed to comply with an earlier order granting defendants’ motion

to compel discovery and admonishing her that noncompliance could result in

dismissal. Following careful review, we find no abuse of discretion. See In re

O’Brien, 351 F.3d 832, 836, 839–40 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review; in context

of Rule 37 motions, court may find willful disobedience sufficient to support

dismissal when party employs delay tactics and disregards court orders). Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons provided by the District Court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We

also deny all of the pending motions.

______________________________

1

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

-2-