alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2 DISABOOM, INC.
CERTIFICATION I, John
Walpuck certify that: 1.          I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Disaboom, Inc. 2.          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; 3.          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; 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 report is being prepared; b)          Intentionally
omitted c)          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 d)          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 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 the 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 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 control over financial
reporting. /s/ John
  WalpuckPrincipal
  Financial Officer Dated: August
14, 2008
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6692

EDWARD WAYNE GIBSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LORETTA K. KELLY, Warden; DOCTOR MOORE,

Assistant Warden/Operations; DOCTOR JOHNS,

Medical Staff Deep Meadow Correctional Center;

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WILLIAMS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District

Judge. (CA-01-404)

Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 16, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Wayne Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Richard

Samuel Samet, GOODMAN, ALLEN & FILETTI, Glen Allen, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward Wayne Gibson appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See Gibson v. Kelly, No.

CA-01-404 (E.D. Va. Aug. 27, 2002; Feb. 5, 2003; Apr. 4, 2003). 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
**Exhibit 23.3**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMThe Board of Directors
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         19,818
<SECURITIES>                                   1,246
<RECEIVABLES>                                  9,135
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    68,374
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,210
<PP&E>                                         18,275
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,791)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 121,581
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          82,994
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          316
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       415
<OTHER-SE>                                     30,075
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   121,581
<SALES>                                        180,627
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               46,358
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  468,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (6,297)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,155)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,623)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,778)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.63)


</TABLE>
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 the Quarterly Report of Disaboom, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J.W. Roth, 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 operations of the Company. /s/ J.W.
  RothPrincipal
  Executive Officer Dated: August
14, 2008
#### A. F. SMITHART, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 19066.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 16, 1937.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 20, 1937.

Jack M. Moore and John H. Bencken-stein, both of Beaumont, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for driving a truck upon a highway with a load in excess of 7,000 pounds in weight; punishment, a fine of $25.

This is a companion case in all of its essential features to that of Morrison v. State, 109 S.W.(2d) 205, opinion this day handed down. For the reasons stated in the Morrison Case, and applying same to the facts and law in this case, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Appellant moves for rehearing in this case upon the same grounds as are set up by’ the same counsel in cause No. 19065, Claude Morrison v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 109 S.W.(2d) 205. The contentions being the same, and the issues the same, the motion for rehearing in this case . is overruled for the reasons set forth in our opinion on rehearing in cause No. 19065, this day handed down.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,328
<SECURITIES>                                     2,996
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,428
<ALLOWANCES>                                       548
<INVENTORY>                                      4,491
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,157
<PP&E>                                          25,957
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,873
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,440
<BONDS>                                         17,998
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,915
<COMMON>                                         3,416
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,920
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,060
<SALES>                                         27,839
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,839
<CGS>                                           20,926
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,672
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 495
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,884
<INCOME-TAX>                                       660
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,325
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,325
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3032 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3032

   To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to repeal a certain 
    reporting requirement of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 10, 2015

   Ms. Sinema (for herself and Mr. Hurt of Virginia) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to repeal a certain 
    reporting requirement of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Securities and Exchange Commission 
Reporting Modernization Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

    Paragraph (6) of section 21(h) of the Securities Exchange Act of 
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78u(h)) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 April 24, 2007
 MARINER ENERGY, INC.
  Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction of 
incorporation or organization)
    
    1-32747
(Commission
File Number)
    
    86-0460233
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
 One BriarLake Plaza, Suite 2000
2000 West Sam Houston Parkway South 
Houston, Texas
(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    77042
(Zip Code)
 (713) 954-5500
 
   o
 o
 o
 o




---



##### 



Item 8.01. Other Events.
  Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits
 Exhibits.
  -1-




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  MARINER ENERGY, INC.Date: April 24, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Teresa G. BushmanTeresa G. Bushman,Senior Vice President and
General Counsel -2-




---



##### 



Exhibit Index
 No.
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release dated April 24, 2007 announcing senior notes offering.
 -3-
EXHIBIT 11
                          SBI COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                         FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
                        SEPTEMBER 30 , 1997 AND 1998

                                          Nine Months      Nine Months
                                             Ended            Ended
                                        Sept. 30, 1997    Sept. 30, 1998
                                        --------------    --------------
Shares outstanding:                         5,345,439         5,570,439
Weighted average shares outstanding         5,345,439         5,570,439
Net loss                                   $ (741,717)     $    280,209)
Preferred Dividend                                --                --
                                        --------------    --------------
Total                                        (741,717)         (280,209)
Net loss per share                         $    (0.14)     $      (0.05)
1 The Hon. Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Court for the Eastern

and Western Districts of Missouri.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-3127EM

_____________ Michael W. Schleeper, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * On Appeal from the United * States District Court for v. * the Eastern District of * Missouri. * Purina Benefits Association, a trust, * [To be Published.] * Defendant-Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 11, 1999 Filed: March 24, 1999

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FLOYD R. GIBSON, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In this ERISA case, the issue is whether the employee-beneficiary failed to exhausthis administrative remedies by not filing a timely intra-plan appeal. The District Court 1 held the claim barred by failure to exhaust. We affirm.-2-

Plaintiff argues exhaustion would have been futile. But no evidence to support this claim was adduced, and we are unwilling to assume futility. Plaintiff points out thathe had already obtained one level of intra-plan review, and that his failure, if any, related only to a second level of intra-plan review. The law does not forbid an intraplan appellate structure containing two levels. Affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### SUMMERS v. LIPSCOMB.

No. 9954.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Jan. 27, 1937.

*376Roland &-Mooberry, of Brownsville, for plaintiff in error.

H. L. Faulk, of Brownsville, for defendant in error.

MURRAY, Justice.

This cause has been regularly submitted in this court, but neither plaintiff in error nor defendant in error has filed written briefs, as required by article 1848, R.C.S. 1925, as amended (Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 1848), and Rules 22 and 38 for Courts of Civil Appeals.

Such failure to file briefs requires that the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution. Rule 38, supra.

Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.
EXHIBIT 31.1



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 June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 11, 2005, (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 OfficerAugust 11, 2005
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3052 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent the misuse of foreign 

law in Federal courts, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 14, 2015 

Mrs. BLACK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent the misuse 

of foreign law in Federal courts, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF FOREIGN LAW IN FEDERAL COURTS. 

4 Part VI of title 28, United States Code, is amended 

5 by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘CHAPTER 183—USE OF FOREIGN LAW IN 

7 FEDERAL COURTS 

‘‘Sec. 

‘‘4201. Limitation on use of foreign law in Federal courts. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3052 IH

1 ‘‘§ 4201. Limitation on use of foreign law in Federal 

2 courts 

3 ‘‘In any court created by or under article III of the 

4 Constitution of the United States, no justice, judge, or 

5 other judicial official shall decide any issue in a case before 

6 that court in whole or in part on the authority of foreign 

7 law, except to the extent the Constitution or an Act of 

8 Congress requires the consideration of that foreign law.’’. 

9 SEC. 2. CLERICAL AMENDMENT. 

10 The table of chapters for part VI of title 28, United 

11 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol12 lowing: 

‘‘183. Use of foreign law in Federal courts ............................. 4201’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         September 19, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 334 to Competitive Product List*. Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-676, CP2024-685.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-21371 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
More OMB comments Fw: Summary of Interagency Comments under EOs

12866 and 13563 -- SSM Petition NPRM 2060-AR68

Phil Lorang to: Lisa Sutton 02/08/2013 04:03 PM

I have not yet looked at it.

Phil Lorang, Senior Policy Advisor

Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, EPA

919-541-5463

----- Forwarded by Phil Lorang/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/08/2013 04:02 PM -----

From: "Frey, Nathan J." <Nathan

_ J.

_ Frey@omb.eop.gov>

To: Paul Shriner/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Nicole Owens/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Phil Lorang/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Geoffrey

Wilcox/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/08/2013 04:02 PM

Subject: RE: Summary of Interagency Comments under EOs 12866 and 13563 -- SSM Petition NPRM

2060-AR68

Attached please find a summary of minor additional interagency comments under EOs 12866 and 13563

on the draft SSM Petition NPRM. Please let me know if you have any questions.

From: Frey, Nathan J.

Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 11:17 A M

To: Shriner.Paul@epamail.epa.gov

Cc: Owens.Nicole@epamail.epa.gov; Lorang.Phil@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: RE: Summary of Interagency Comments under EOs 12866 and 13563 -- SSM Petition NPRM

2060- A R68

Attached please find a summary of interagency comments under EOs 12866 and 13563 with respect to

the memo regarding the Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy Context for this Rulemaking.

From: Frey, Nathan J.

Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:47 PM

To: Shriner

. Paul @ epamail

. epa

. gov

Cc: Owens

. Nicole @ epamail

. epa

. gov

Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EOs 12866 and 13563 -- SSM Petition NPRM

2060- A R68

Attached for your review and comment please find a summary of interagency comments under EOs

12866 and 13563 regarding the proposed rule entitled, State Implementation Plans: Response to

Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying

to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; RIN # 2060

‐ AR68.

Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions

Summary of Interagency Comments under EOs 12866_13563 SSM Petition NPRM.docx