alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Kenneth L. Rice, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Alseres Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading 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 inall material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (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 designedunder 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) [Not Applicable];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        DATE: November 14, 2007 /s/ Kenneth L. Rice, Jr.   **Kenneth L. Rice, Jr.**    **Executive Vice President Finance and Administration and Chief**
Exhibit 32.1

Certification  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United
States Code), the undersigned officer of Vertis, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge,
that:

The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") of the Company fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Dated: March 5, 2004 |  | /s/DONALD E. ROLAND
|-------------------- |  | -------------------
|                     |  | Name:              
|                     |  | Title:             

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,
chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

---

QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 203 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 62694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26875]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area (SRA) Advisory Council

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA

ACTION: Forest Service; Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Advisory Council meeting 
will convene in Stayton, Oregon on Monday, November 13, 2000. The 
meeting is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m., and will conclude at 
approximately 8:30 p.m. The meeting will be held in the South Room of 
the Stayton Community Center located on 400 West Virginia Street in 
Stayton, OR.
    The Opal Creek Wilderness and Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Act 
of 1996 (Opal Creek Act) (Pub. L. 104-208) directed the Secretary of 
Agriculture to establish the Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area Advisory 
Council. The Advisory Council is comprised of thirteen members 
representing state, county and city governments, and representatives of 
various organizations, which include mining industry, environmental 
organizations, inholders in Opal Creek Scenic Recreation Area, economic 
development, Indian tribes, adjacent landowners and recreation 
interests. The council provides advice to the Secretary of Agriculture 
on preparation of a comprehensive Opal Creek Management Plan for the 
SRA, and consults on a periodic and regular basis on the management of 
the area. The tentative agenda will include refining issue statements 
and describing the desired future condition of the SRA.
    The public comment period is tentatively scheduled to begin at 8 
p.m. Time allotted for individual presentations will be limited to 3 
minutes. Written comments are encouraged, particularly if the material 
cannot be presented within the time limits of the comment period. 
Written comments may be submitted prior to the November 13 meeting by 
sending them to Designated Federal Official Stephanie Phillips at the 
address given below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information regarding this 
meeting, contact Designated Federal Official Stephanie Phillips; 
Willamette National Forest, Detroit Ranger District, HC 73 Box 320, 
Mill City, OR 97360; (503) 854-3366.

    Dated: October 13, 2000.
Sue Olson,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 00-26875 Filed 10-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
---

Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Daniel M. Moloney, Chief Executive Officer of Technitrol, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 26, 2010 (the “Periodic Report”) which this statement accompanies 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)
information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Technitrol, Inc.





Dated:  May 4, 2010
/s/ Daniel M. MoloneyDaniel M. Moloney





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Technitrol, Inc., and will be retained by Technitrol, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### Christopher Martin, Respondent, v Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Central New York, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of defendant Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Central New York, Inc. Where the provisions of an insurance contract are clear and unambiguous, they must be enforced as written *(see, State of New York v Home Indem. Co.,*66 NY2d 669, 671; *Breed v Insurance Co.,*46 NY2d 351, 355, *rearg denied*46 NY2d 940; *Venigalla v Penn Mut. Ins. Co.,*130 AD2d 974, 975, *lv dismissed*70 NY2d 747). Defendant met all of its statutory and contractual obligations to give notice of termination of the group health insurance policy, which terminated automatically as of the due date (May 1, 1988) because of the failure of plaintiff's employer to pay the premium due. Furthermore, plaintiff admits that he received a notice of conversion which defendant mailed on or about November 28, 1988, and did not avail himself of the opportunity to convert to a direct payment contract. Where, as here, an insurer has erroneously paid benefits on behalf of its insured under a mistake of fact, the insurer is entitled to restitution from the insured *(see, Blue Cross v Wheeler,*93 AD2d 995). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Miller, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2871 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2871

To amend title 28, United States Code, to modify the composition of the 
     southern judicial district of Mississippi to improve judicial 
                  efficiency, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2013

  Mr. Coble (for himself, Mr. Watt, Mr. Holding, and Mr. Thompson of 
 Mississippi) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 28, United States Code, to modify the composition of the 
     southern judicial district of Mississippi to improve judicial 
                  efficiency, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REALIGNMENT OF SOUTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI.

    Section 104(b) of title 28, United States Code, is amended to read 
as follows:

                          ``Southern District

    ``(b) The southern district comprises four divisions.
            ``(1) The Northern Division comprises the counties of 
        Copiah, Hinds, Holmes, Issaquena, Kemper, Lauderdale, Leake, 
        Madison, Neshoba, Newton, Noxubee, Rankin, Scott, Simpson, 
        Sharkey, Smith, Warren, and Yazoo.
Court for the Northern Division shall be held at Jackson.
            ``(2) The Southern Division comprises the counties of 
        George, Greene, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, Pearl River, and 
        Stone.
Court for the Southern Division shall be held at Gulfport.
            ``(3) The Eastern Division comprises the counties of 
        Clarke, Covington, Forrest, Jasper, Jefferson Davis, Jones, 
        Lamar, Lawrence, Marion, Perry, Wayne, and Walthall.
Court for the Eastern Division shall be held at Hattiesburg.
            ``(4) The Western Division comprises the counties of Adams, 
        Amite, Claiborne, Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln, Pike, and 
        Wilkinson.
Court for the Western Division shall be held at Natchez.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act and the amendment made by this Act shall take effect on 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32



Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. '1350



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. '1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Superior Uniform Group, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on their knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the period ended September 30, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Gerald M. Benstock                    
|                                          
|Gerald M. Benstock Chief Executive Officer



|                                             
|---------------------------------------------
|/s/ Andrew D. Demott, Jr.                    
|                                             
|Andrew D. Demott, Jr. Chief Financial Officer



Date: October 30, 2003
**Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONI, Michael P. Malone, certify that: (1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TechnicalCommunications Corporation;  (2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith 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 respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issueras of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  (4) The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during thesmall business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and (6) The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability torecord, 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 business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting.       /s/ Michael P. Malone  Michael P. Malone  Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.01




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Biglari Holdings Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 6, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 /s/ Sardar BiglariSardar Biglari

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
 August 12, 2011
 
 
 
 /s/ Duane E. GeigerDuane E. Geiger

Interim Chief Financial Officer, Vice President and Controller
 August 12, 2011
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

MELODY JOY CANTU and

DR. RODRIGO CANTU, 

Plaintiffs

V.

DR. SANDRA GUERRA and

DIGITAL FORENSICS 

CORPORATION, LLC

Defendants

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NO 5:20-CV-00746-JKP (HJB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

DEFENDANT DR. SANDRA GUERRA’S AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

On this date came on to be considered Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Defendant Dr. Sandra 

Guerra’s Amended Counterclaims (Doc. No. 38) (the “Motion”). Upon due consideration of the 

Motion and Defendant, Dr. Sandra Guerra’s Response thereto (Doc. No. ____), the Court finds 

that the Motion should be DENIED. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Defendant Dr. 

Sandra Guerra’s Amended Counterclaims is DENIED in all respects. 

It is so ORDERED.

Dated: ____________________ __________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 39-1 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000

<CASH>                                         1,462,319
<SECURITIES>                                   61,453
<RECEIVABLES>                                  179,251
<ALLOWANCES>                                   10,000
<INVENTORY>                                    1,251,010
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,948,088
<PP&E>                                         491,833
<DEPRECIATION>                                 314,162
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,137,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          169,599
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       39,379
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,928,322
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,137,300
<SALES>                                        265,453
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               265,453
<CGS>                                          135,840
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  377,366
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               21,010
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (90,903)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (90,903)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (90,903)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.02)



</TABLE>
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No . 0 4- 08 -0 03 09 -C R Jame s JOH NSO N , Appellant
v. The STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 186th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CR-8282B Honora ble Maria Tere sa He rr, Judge Presiding
PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: Dec ember 17, 2008 DI SMI SSED On De c e mbe r 9 , 2 00 8, a

pp e lla nt fi le d a mot ion to d ism iss . T he mot ion

is G RA NT ED , and the appe al is dismis sed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.2(a). PER C URI AM

DO NO T PU B L I SH
p. 1


# OAR Box 

# 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# e9?>£23Tll-E-18 3 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:11 AM

Sheet 223 of 264p__

AUG-20-98TH U14:2 5 GHM,INC . 1 T1 T 36 6 1T0 6 P . 0 2 

### A 94 5 2 Contac t Repor t ° From : Shawn McKee , Pacifi c Environmenta l Services , Inc . (PES ) Date : Augus t 20,199 8 Contact : Mr . Glen n Mille r Company : GHM , Inc . Telephon e Number : (717 ) 366-396 7 Fa x Number : (717 ) 366-170 6 Contac t Summary : Mr . Glenn Miller

wa s contacte do n behal f

o f th e U.S . EP

A t o gai n informatio n abou t potentia l indirec t

cost s associate d wit

h changm g t o non-atomize dproductio n equipment , an d th e usag e o f vapo r suppressants . In respons e t o m y question s Mr . Miller

indicate dth e following : GHM , Inc . i s currentl

y usin g flo w coater s i n thei

r production process . Th e cos t o f switchin g t o thi s equipment

wa s betwee n $50 0 and$60 0 pe r machine , includin g equipment , an dth e shor t trainin g an d adjustmen

t perio d necessar

y fo r th e operators . Thes e cost s wer e incurre dfo r aroun d 5 machines . Afte

r th e operator s hadadjustedt o usin g th e new equipment , the y foun d tiiat th e improve d ai r

qualit y fromth e reductio n i n slyrene emission s significantly improve dth e workin g environment . [Mr . Miller , coul d yo u pleas e indicat e whethe r o r no t yo u sa w achang e i n th e amoun t o f resi n bein g use d afte r

switchin g t o th e flow coaters? ] 

### "ftfEiU i U A $U6trT

ItfdkMiE IN

77/

_</5 £ OP kn.tH tJiTf/ Mec.iE , Si»c* £Ac» /Wc> - ue . /"**•/ * ^'-^vrT**fr#* r 

### tMsrfl/te£

iris 

### tofifiKvw ro Gwrifiy ffao wut MOM H-*'^ Befor e switching t o flo

w coaters , GHM , Inc . hadtrie dt o us e pressure-fe drollers , however , th e operator s foun

d usin g pressure-fe droller s took muc h longer , an

drequire dcleanin g ever

y lim e productio n wa s stopped . Th e increas e i n productio n time mad e th e us e o f

pressure-fe d roller s impractica l fo r GHM , Inc . N o equipmen

t cost s wer e incurredbecaus e th e equipment wa s o n loa

n fro mth e supplier . GHM , Inc . als o currentl

y add s avapo

r suppressan

t to thei r resin s a t acos t o f $0.0 2 to $0.0 3 pe r pound , or $1 0 to $1 5 pe

r drum. . The suppressan

t doe s no t tak e asignifican

t amoun t o f tim e to add , no r doe s i t caus e an y productio n problems , /-pf c OyfL ^^A./i7?^/M- , - ) ^ £ - ^ ' 

### \T QiovLC rior&a A&UH-b r/ w is r// £ <M$ £ Pok ortf-ck FMktcATokSi . INFORMATIO

N I S ACCURAT

E ^/fj&^Jf. WC_l%_/4*J_£/ " 

# I
#### TATE v. STATE.

No. 23427.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 23, 1946.

No attorney for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge,

Appellant was convicted of an aggravated assault upon Amanda McWhorter, and punishment assessed at a fine of $2&, and one month in jail.

The record is before us Without bills of exception, and there are no objections to the court’s charge.

The facts support the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.