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



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 Park Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 13, 2004, (the Report), I, Steven J. Pokrak, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Steven J. PokrakTreasurer and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 13, 2004
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6149

BERNARD M. JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARK HENRY, Warden, FCI Cumberland, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA98-4232-CCB) Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 20, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard M. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Bernard M. Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Johnson v. Henry , No. CA-98-4232-CCB (D. Md. Jan. 15, 1999); see also Pelissero v. Thompson , ___ F.3d ___, No. 97-6156, 1999 WL 133112 (4th Cir. Mar. 12, 1999). We dispense with 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
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
NO T FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED J.F., FATHER OF J.F., A CHILD , A pp ellant ,

v. Cas e No

. 5D 23

- 0364 LT Case No. 2021 -D P -2 04

DEPA RTM ENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ,

Appellee s. ________________________________/ Decision filed March 1 4, 2 023 Ap pea l from th e C ircuit Court, fo r Duv al C ounty, W. Collins Cooper, Judge.
Michael A. Tupper, of Tupper La w, Jacksonville, fo r

A ppellant

. Sarah Rum ph , of

C hildren L egal Services, Tallahassee , for A ppellee

. Morg an Lyle W einstein, o f Twig Trad e & T ribunal, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, a n d Sara E lizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Krystle Celine Cacci, Senior Attorney, Ta llahassee, for Guardian ad L item

. PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
EDW ARDS, HARRIS an d BOATWRIGHT , JJ. , concur.
|Exhibit 12                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                
|North Shore Gas Company and Subsidiary Companies                
|                                                                
|Statement Re:  Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
|(Dollars in Thousands)                                          
|                                                                
|                                                                
|                                                                
|                                                                
|                                                                
|Net Income Before Preferred                                     
|Stock Dividends                                                 
|                                                                
|Add - Income Taxes                                              
|Fixed Charges (see below)                                       
|                                                                
|Earnings                                                        
|                                                                
|Fixed Charges:                                                  
|Interest on Long-Term Debt                                      
|Other Interest                                                  
|                                                                
|Total Fixed Charges                                             
|                                                                
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
[No. 17904-4-III.

Division Three.

November 14, 2000.]

#### Gary D. Williams, et al., *Respondents,*v. Rose E. Rogers Trust, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 95-2-07941-0, Gregory D. Sypolt, J., entered September 15,1998. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, J., concurred in by Schultheis and Kato, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

As adopted pursuant to

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with Quarterly Report of Park Bancorp, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2006, (the Report), I,
David A. Remijas, President and Chief Executive 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) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ David A. RemijasDavid A. RemijasPresident and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 14, 2006




22.
#### MORRIS v. STATE.

No. 19271.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. *5,*1938.

Joe W. Taylor and J. D. Willis, both of Waco, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is driving an automobile on a public highway while intoxicated; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for eighteen months.

The jury were advised in the charge of the court to add to their verdict the length of time appellant should be prohibited from driving any motor vehicle upon the highways .of this state, not to exceed two years. The verdict was in part as follows: “We further find that the defendant shall be prohibited from operating a motor vehicle on the highways of this state for a term of 2 years.”

Prior to the repeal of article 802a, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., the jury would have been warranted in prohibiting the appellant from driving a motor vehicle on the highways of this state for a period not to exceed two years. However, when the offense was committed by appellant, and at the time of his trial, said article 802a was not in effect. The repealing act, section 16 of chapter 466, Acts of the 44th Leg., 1935, Second Called Session, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 6687a, § 16, provided that a conviction for a violation of the provisions of article 802, P.C., as amended by Acts 1935, First Called Session, c. 424, § 1, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 802, denouncing the driving of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, should have the effect of automatically suspending the license of one so convicted for a period of six months for the first offense. In Harris v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 109 S.W.2d 201, it was held that the act of the Legislature mentioned repealed article 802a, supra.

As far as the record'discloses the matter, this was appellant’s first conviction under article 802, supra. Hence it would follow that his license could only be suspended or revoked for a period of six months. It might be .added that the statute provides that the effect of such conviction is to automatically suspend the license. Hence no charge on the subject should have been submitted to the jury. .

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
September 29, 1997


William W. Colville
Management Practice, Inc.
342 Madison Avenue
Suite 1230
New York, NY 10173

Consulting Agreement

Dear Bill:

This will confirm our agreement to amend the terms of the
Consulting Agreement dated as of January 1, 1995 between
Owens Corning(the "Company") and you(the "Consulting
Agreement"), to reflect your election as Acting General
Counsel and Secretary of the Company.  The numbered
paragraphs below correspond to numbered paragraphs in the
Consulting Agreement.

     1.   Scope of Consultation.  From September 15, 1997 through
          the earlier of March 31, 1998 and the hiring by the Company
          of a Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary,
          you will act as General Counsel and Secretary for the
          Company, devoting your full time efforts to such duties.  At
          the end of your tenure as Acting General Counsel and
          Secretary, the original scope of consultation will resume.
     
     2.   Term of Agreement.  The term shall be extended for an
          additional one year period at the end of each year through
          1999, rather than 1998, unless mutually agreed by you and
          the Corporation.
     
     3.   Compensation.  The Company shall pay you, in lieu
          of the amounts listed in the Consulting Agreement, 
          $29,166.67 per month from September 15, 1997 until
          termination of your duties as Acting General
          Counsel and Secretary, at which time the compensation
          listed in the  Consulting Agreement will resume.  In
          addition, at the termination of    your duties as
          Acting General Counsel and Secretary, you will be
          eligible for a cash bonus, in the discretion of the
          Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer.
     
     4.   Expenses.  In addition to the expenses reimbursable
          under the Consulting Agreement, you will be
          reimbursed for reasonable temporary living expenses
          in Toledo, Ohio during your tenure as Acting
          General Counsel and Secretary.


All other terms and conditions of the Consulting Agreement
will remain in effect.

If the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding,
please sign the enclosed copy of this letter in the space
provided below, at which point the Consulting Agreement will
be amended in accordance with this letter.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Glen H. Hiner
================
Glen H. Hiner
Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer


ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:




/s/ William W. Colville
=======================
William W. Colville
11/13/97
#### WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. 18612.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 14, 1936.

Currie McCutcheon, Walter M. Kolles-chnig, and Frank D. Ivey, all of Dallas, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is murder; penalty assessed at death.

It has been made known to this court by proper affidavit that appellant died August 27, 1936, after having perfected his appeal and pending the disposition thereof. The death of the appellant deprives this court of jurisdiction of the appeal. It is therefore abated.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5
<MULTIPLIER>       1

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                174,809
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                          56,499
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                            43,643
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      287,236
<PP&E>                              4,580,981
<DEPRECIATION>                      4,521,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        404,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 855,995
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                              159,270
<OTHER-SE>                           (610,845)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          404,870
<SALES>                               792,965
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      810,365
<CGS>                                 692,224
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         692,224
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      342,759
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     31,025
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (236,196)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (236,196)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                         (236,196)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (.14)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE  SHEET AT DECEMBER  31, 1998 AND THE RELATED  CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS  AND OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998
OF  PHELPS  DODGE  CORPORATION  AND ITS  SUBSIDIARIES  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         221,700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  336,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,900
<INVENTORY>                                    266,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               980,000
<PP&E>                                       6,081,200
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,494,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,036,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          651,100
<BONDS>                                        836,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       362,100
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,225,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,036,500
<SALES>                                      3,063,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,063,400
<CGS>                                        2,360,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,360,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               157,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              94,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                337,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   134,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            190,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   190,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.26
        

</TABLE>
#### MALONE v. STATE.

No. 19561.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 20, 1938.

Rehearing Denied June 15, 1938.

Rollie Fancher, of Seymour, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is driving an automobile on a public highway while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $50.

In the indictment it was alleged that appellant, while intoxicated, drove an automobile “upon a public and state highway, to-wit highway No. 30, in and through Bom-arton, Baylor County, Texas.” We have carefully examined the statement of facts and fail to find any evidence in support of the averment that appellant drove the automobile on highway No. 30. It was incumbent upon the State to support the allegation that the car was operated on said highway No. 30, as alleged in the indictment. Spencer v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 336, 42 S.W.2d 259. The State’s attorney before this court confesses error.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

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

On Motion for Rehearing.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The State contends that we erred in the original opinion in holding that it had failed to prove that appellant, while intoxicated, drove an automobile “upon a state highway, to-wit highway No. 30, in and through Bomarton, Baylor County, Texas,” as charged in the indictment.

We have again reviewed the statement of facts but find no testimony to that effect therein. Had it been shown that state highway No. 30 was the only highway in and through said town, such might have been sufficient, but such proof is lacking.

The allegations in the indictment being descriptive of the offense had to be proved as charged. See Spencer v. State, supra, and authorities there cited.

*780Being of the opinion that the proper disposition was made of the case on original submission, the State’s motion for rehearing will be overruled.

PER CURIAM.

, The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
uNNIBtiel,A 

purely legal issues, see Ostman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 

563, 565, 816 P.2d 458, 459-60 (1991); State v. Babayan,, 106 Nev. 155, 

174, 787 P.2d 805, 819-20 (1990).' 

It is so ORDERED. 

Gibbons 

CC: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge 

Legal Resource Group 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'Petitioner argues that the district applied the incorrect legal 

standard in reviewing his pretrial habeas petition. Because he has not 

shown that the district court manifestly abused its discretion in this 

regard, no relief is warranted. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court 

(Armstrong), 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 84, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining 

manifest abuse and arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A e, 

2
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(c)

             Schedule of Certain Executive Officers who are Parties
              to the Severance Pay Agreements in the Forms Attached
         as Exhibit 10(b) to the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
                       For the Period Ended June 30, 1997

Form A of Severance Pay Agreement

Christopher M. Connor
Joseph M. Scaminace

Form B of Severance Pay Agreement

John L. Ault
Sean P. Hennessy
Thomas E. Hopkins
Conway G. Ivy
Blair P. LaCour
John G. Morikis
Thomas W. Seitz
Louis E. Stellato
Alexander Zalesky
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Forms S-8 (No. 333-67690), S-8 (No. 333-59580), S-8 (No.333-57310),
S-8 (No.333-45396), and S-8 (No.333-83073) of Paradyne Networks, Inc. of our
report dated February 1, 2002, except for the information in Note 16 as to which
the dates are March 5, 2002 and March 9, 2002 relating to the financial
statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Tampa, Florida
April 1, 2002
# C_2023140EN.01008401.xml

| 21.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/84

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) 2017/745 and (EU) No 2017/746 as regards the transitional provisions for certain medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices’

(COM(2023) 10 final — 2023/0005 (COD))

(2023/C 140/14)

| Referral | Council of the European Union, 23.1.2023
  European Parliament, 26.1.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Articles 114 and 168(4), point (c), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union |
| Section responsible | Single Market, Production and Consumption |
| Adopted at plenary | 24.1.2023 |
| Plenary session No | 575 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 190/0/2 |

Referral

Council of the European Union, 23.1.2023

European Parliament, 26.1.2023

Legal basis

Articles 114 and 168(4), point (c), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Section responsible

Single Market, Production and Consumption

Adopted at plenary

24.1.2023

Plenary session No

575

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

190/0/2

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 24 January 2023.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG

---
# C_2022085EN.01000201.xml

| 22.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/2 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------ |

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.9987– NVIDIA / ARM) (Text with EEA relevance) (2022/C 85/02) On 8 September 2021, the European Commission received notification ( 1 ) of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 ( 2 ) (‘Merger Regulation’). On 27 October 2021, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings ( 3 ) under Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. On 8 February 2022, the notifying party informed the Commission that it withdrew its notification and demonstrated that it abandoned the concentration. ( 1 )  OJ C 370, 15/09/2021, p. 10. ( 2 )  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1. ( 3 )  OJ C 447, 04/11/2021, p. 2.

---