alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.3


I, Patrycia T. Barnard, Vice President of Finance and Treasurer
of BayCorp Holdings, Ltd. certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BayCorp
Holdings, Ltd;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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-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 quarterly report is being prepared;

  b)  [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and
34-47986];

  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

  d) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting;

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
person performing the equivalent functions):

  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 controls.


Date: April 23, 2004     By:  /s/ Patrycia T. Barnard
                            ------------------------------------
                            Patrycia T. Barnard
                            Vice President of Finance
                            and Treasurer
                            (chief accounting officer)
#### INVESTORS’ SYNDICATE et al. v. THOMAS et ux.

No. 11623.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

May 19, 1934.

Seay, Malone & Lipscomb, of Dallas, for appellants.

J. Lee Zumwalt, of Dallas, for appellees-.

JONES, Chief Justice.

This was an injunction suit instituted in a district court of Dallas county by ap-pellees, to enjoin the sale by the trustee in a deed of trust, creating a lien on the land in controversy to secure a valid debt, owing by appellee to appellant; a temporary writ of injunction was granted, under the provisions of the Moratorium Act of 1933 (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 2218b). This law, by its own terms, ended May 1, 1934, and the injunction granted necessarily ended 011 said date. Deciding eases, involving the same question, the Supreme Court, in a memorandum opinion, held that the law, under which the appeals were taken, “is effective in no event beyond May 1, 1934. Since the statute is no longer operative, the cause is deemed moot and for that reason is dismissed. Any injunctive or restraining order heretofore entered by this or any lower court is hereby dissolved.” Plainview B. & L. Ass’n v. Lillian Robbins; Guardian Trust Co., Trustee, v. Mrs. Louise Turner et vir; J. E. Broussard et al. v. Beaumont Petroleum *94Syndicate et al.; Malachy Murphy v. E. O. Phillips et ah, 72 S.W.(2d) 92 (none of which have been reported [in State Report]).

Such holding by the Supreme Court is binding on this court, and for the reason stated by the Supreme Court, this appeal is dismissed, and the temporary writ of injunction dissolved.

The dismissal of this case does not affect appellants’ rights, if any exist, against appellees on the temporary injunction bond, l>rovided that, under the record in this case, the then existing Moratorium Law did not authorize the granting of the said temporary writ.

Dismissed.
# AGENCY:

 Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

# ACTION:

 Notice.

# SUMMARY:

 This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(I). The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is contemplating the granting of an exclusive license in the United States to practice the invention embodied in U.S. Patent No. 5,544,973 titled “Concrete Step Embankment Protection”. The exclusive license is to be granted to Lee Masonary Products, L.L.C., DBA Armortec, having a place of business in Bowling Green, Kentucky. The patent rights in this invention has been assigned to the United States of America.

The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. While the primary purpose of this notice is to announce Reclamation's intent to grant an exclusive license to practice the invention listed above, it also serves to publish the availability of this invention for licensing in accordance with law. The prospective license may be granted unless Reclamation receives written evidence and argument which establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7

# DATES:

 Written evidence and arguments against granting the prospective license must be received by May 10, 2000.

# ADDRESSES:

 Inquiries, comments, and other materials relating to the contemplated license may be submitted to Donald E. Ralston, Bureau of Reclamation, Research and Technology Transfer, MS-7620, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240.

A copy of the above-identified patent may be purchased from the NTIS Sales Desk by telephoning 1-800-553-NTIS or by writing NTIS at 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Donald Ralston by telephone at (202) 208-5671.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

 The present invention relates to a dam spillway system for embankment dam overtopping protection comprising a layer of freedraining, angular, gravel filter material, a plurality of rows of overlapping, tapered, concrete blocks assembled over the filter material in shingle-fashion, from the toe of the dam, up the slope to the top of the dam, and a plurality of fixed concrete toe blocks located at the toe of the dam, usually beneath the tailwater, and supporting each of the rows of concrete blocks. The invention has particular application to providing erosion protection for embankment dams that may be subject to overtopping flows.

Properly filed competing applications received by Reclamation in response to this notice will be considered as objections to the grant of the contemplated license.

Dated: January 12, 2000.

Stanley L. Ponce,

Director, Research and Technology Transfer.

[FR Doc. 00-3110 Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-94-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,197
<SECURITIES>                                    14,895
<RECEIVABLES>                                      891
<ALLOWANCES>                                        16
<INVENTORY>                                        801
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,519
<PP&E>                                           8,314
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,183
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,527
<BONDS>                                          7,010
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,139
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,331
<SALES>                                          1,137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,137
<CGS>                                            1,069
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,069
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,420
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 174
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,623)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,623)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,623)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.47)
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 66 6 5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DESMOND SINGLETARY, a/k/a Six , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. David C. Norton, District Judge. ( 2:16

- cr - 00054

- DCN

- 6 )

Submitted : October 18, 2022 Decided: October 21, 2022

Before WYNN and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Desmond Singletary , Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Robert de Holl, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Charleston, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinion s are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6665 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/21/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Desmond Singletary appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release

. We review a district court’s denial of a compassionate release motion f or abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Singletary failed to show extraor dinary and compelling circumstances warranting release or that the 18 U.S.C. § 3 553(a) factors weighed against his release

. See United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181,
188

- 91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required for denial of compassionate release motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United
States v. Singletary , No. 2 : 16

- cr - 00 054

- DCN

- 6 ( D.S .C. June 1 , 2022). We deny Singletary’s motion for the appointment of counsel, and we grant his motion to seal onl y as to the motion to seal itself. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6665 Doc: 12 Filed: 10/21/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
#### SCHAFFER v. STATE.

No. 20659.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 6, 1939.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 31, 1940.

J. A. Collier, of Houston, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for an assault and battery. The punishment assessed is a fine of $25.

The complaint and information contain two counts. In the first appellant was charged with simple assault and in the second count with aggravated assault and battery. When the case was called for trial, appellant waived a jury and entered a plea of guilty. The State, notwithstanding appellant’s plea of guilty, placed the injured party upon the witness stand, who testified that on the afternoon of March 6, 1939, appellant struck him with a piece of pipe as he was walking along upon Polk Avenue in the City of Houston, Harris County, Texas. Appellant' testified in his own behalf and placed his wife upon the stand, who testified that on two prior occasions the injured party had passed her home; that on each occasion he scraped his feet on the sidewalk, made a hissing noise with his mouth "and winked at her, of which she informed her husband, the appellant. On cross-examination, she was asked by the State if she did not state to the arresting officer that all the negro did was scrape his feet on the sidewalk and stare at her when she looked at him. She denied this and then the State called the arresting officer, who contradicted her and testified that she did tell him so in the presence of appellant. By bill of exception No. 2 he complains of the cross-examination of his wife relative to what she said to the officer on the ground that she was compelled, over his objection, to give testimony against him. We are unable to agree with him. When he placed his wife upon the witness stand she was subject to cross-examination or impeachment germane to her direct examination just as any other witness.

The record (bill of exception No.l) shows that appellant was found guilty of simple assault and battery, and the evidence, together with his plea of guilty, fully sustains the court’s conclusion of the appellant’s guilt.

No reyersible error appearing in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of -the Commission of Appeals has been examined.by .the *718Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

On Motion for Rehearing

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Since the opinion was handed down in this case appellant has discovered that the transcript erroneously stated that he had pleaded guilty. By a supplemental transcript this has been corrected and we have again considered the matter in the light of that correction. We are unable to see that any difference is made, as the principal complaint was not brought before this court in a proper manner, and we are unable to give it further consideration than that which was given in the original opinion. We find no error in the record, and the motion for rehearing is overruled.
# Table of Rules in ODEQ Division 12 (340-012-XXXX)

Changes Made, SIP Submittals, and EPA Proposed Disposition **Section Title**  **submitted submitted**  **14-Jul-05 28-Aug-06**  **adopted adopted**  **9-Dec-04 2-Mar-06**  0026 Policy X 0027 Rule Effective Date X - June 1, 2005X - March 31, 2006 0028 Scope of Applicability X 0030 Definitions X 0038 Warning Letters, PreEnforcement Notices and Notices of Permit ViolationX 0040 [Renumbered to 0038] X 0041 Formal Enforcement ActionsX 0042 [Renumbered to 0140] X 0045 Civil Penalty Determination Procedure X 0047 [Renumbered to 0170] X 0048 [Renumbered to 0165] X 0049 [Renumbered to 0155] X 0050 [Renumbered to 0054] X 0053 Violations that Apply to all Programs X X 0054 Air Quality Classification of Violations X X 0055 Water Quality Classication of Violations X X 0060 Onsite Sewage Disposal Classification of ViolationsX X **Docket EPA – R10 – OAR – 2008- 0903** 0065 Solid Waste Management

Classification of ViolationsX X 0066 Solid Waste Tire Management Classification of Violations X X 0067 Underground Storage Tank (UST) Classification of Violations X X 0068 Hazardous Waste Management and Disposal Classification of ViolationsX X 0071 Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Classification of Violations X X 0072 Used Oil Management Classification of ViolationsX X 0073 Environmental Cleanup Classification of Violation X X 0074 Underground Storage Tank (UST) Cleanup Classification of ViolationsX X 0079 Heating Oil Tank (HOT) Classification of ViolationsX X 0081 Oil and Hazardous Material Spill and Release Classification of ViolationsX X 0082 Contingency Planning Classification of ViolationsX X 0083 Ballast Water Management Classification of ViolationsX X 0090 [Renumbered to 340-012- 0135] X 0097 Dry Cleaning Classification of Violations X X 0130 Determination of Violation Magnitude X X 0135 Selected Magnitude Categories X X0140 Determination of Base

Penalty X X 0145 Determination of Aggravating or Mitigating Factors X 0150 Determination of Economic Benefit X 0155 Additional or Alternate Civil Penalties X X 0160 Department Discretion Regarding Penalty Assessment X 0162 Inability to Pay the Penalty X 0165 Stipulated Penalties X 0170 Compromise or Settlement of Civil Penalty by DepartmentX

# Table of Rules in ODEQ Division 12 (340-012-XXXX) Changes Made, SIP Submittals, and EPA Proposed Disposition

**Comments**

Not Air Not AirNot Air

Not Air Not Air Not Air Not Air Not Air

Not Air Not Air Not Air

Not Air

Not Air
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 13**  **8 3** 

DALE L. SADLER, Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant

– Appellee , and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Party

- in

- Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond

. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. ( 3:09

- cv - 00689

- REP )

Submitted : August 26 , 2010 Decided: August 31, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN , Circuit J udges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Dale L. Sadler , Appellant Pro Se. Debra J. Prill a man, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia , for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dale L. Sadler appeals the district court ’ s order denying relief on his complaint . The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. A.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) ( West 200 6 & Supp. 2010 ). The mag istrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Sadler that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge ’ s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see a lso Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Sadler has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and deny Sadler’s motion to appoint counsel

. We dispense wit h oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
AFFIRMED
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN: SE020 7 2

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
Exhibit 32

 

**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 FBL Financial Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10‐Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James E. Hohmann, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, James P. Brannen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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. |

 

Date: November 5, 2009 

 
|   | By     | /s/ James E. Hohmann                                  |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | James E. Hohmann                                      |   |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |   |
|   |   |                                                  |   |
|   | By     | /s/ James P. Brannen                                                 |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | James P. Brannen                                                     |   |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |
|   |   |                                                                 |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to FBL Financial Group, Inc., and will be retained by FBL Financial Group, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

----