alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1**CERTIFICATION**  I, Sandra H. Stephens, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of SouthFirst Bancshares, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained inSEC Release 34-47986]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        August 14, 2006  /s/ Sandra H. Stephens   Sandra H. Stephens   Chief Executive Officer
#### In re Guardianship of Lindsay: Lindsay, Appellant, vs. Kamprud, Guardian, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Twesme & Twesme*of Galesville.

For the respondent: *John C. Quinn*of Galesville, and *Hale & Skemp*of La Crosse.

*By the Court.*

Order affirmed.
*November 4, 1941.*

#### Jesdahl, Appellant, vs. Fink, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Artemas F. Berner*of Antigo.

For the respondent: *Coe & Cameron*of Rice Lake.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
#### J. J. Russell *et al.,*Appellants, v. W. B. Torbet *et al.,*Appellees.

Homestead: practice in supreme court : argument-

*Appeal from Louisa District Court.*— Hon. D. Ryan, Judge.

Friday, October 24, 1890.

William B. and Nancy P. Torbet are brother and sister, and are defendants in this suit. William B. Torbet was the owner of two pieces of land, one containing eight and one-half acres and the other six and one-half acres. ■ While owning said lands, William B. Terbet became indebted to the plaintiffs, who are now judgment creditors of said Torbet. After the indebtedness arose, and before the judgments were obtained thereon, William B. Torbet transferred the lands in question to his codefendant, Nancy P. Torbet. This action is to set aside the conveyance of the lands, and declare them subject to execution upon the judgments obtained, on the ground that the transfer was collusively fraudulent as to the plaintiffs. The answer denies the fraud, and avers a homestead right as to the eight andfa half acre tract in William B. Torbet. The district court found for the plaintifE as to the fraudulent transfer of the property, and for William B. Torbet under his claim of a homestead right, and gave judgment accordingly, from which the plaintiffs appeal.

*E. W. Tatloch,*for appellants.

No appearance for appellee.

Granger, J.

We readily concur in the conclusion of the district court that the transfer of the lands was fraudulent and void. The question of homestead exemption alone remains to be considered. This question, in its legal aspect, is nice and important. The announcement of legal rules, to serve as precedents, is of so much importance that the greatest care should be observed in the performance of the duty. An almost indispensable requisite, as an aid to the court, is a carefully prepared brief and argument. If an appellant neglects to furnish this aid, we assume he has abandoned his appeal or claims in this court, and without other reasons affirm the action of the court below. A like rule has not been applied against an appellee with such neglect, but his case is examined and determined with such care as its importance demands, and our time will admit of. The result, however, is always reached with greater liability to error, and, while a conclusion must be reached and announced, it is done with a conviction of such liability, *755and of the necessity of avoiding it as far as practicable. If appellees neglect to aid us, and our conclusions are against them, they cannot justly complain that they are not favored with our reasons, and an elaborate statement of the facts. The homestead claim in this case is based on an occupancy by brother and sister, and under a state of facts new and somewhat peculiar. In view of the record, and the absence of an argument for appellees, we content ourselves with the announcement that, with our examination of the record, we do not find the facts necessary to sustain the averment of a homestead right in William B. Torbet, and that plaintiffs are entitled to a decree subjecting the premises to their judgment. REVERSED.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

128 CAF 11-00271 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF CLAUDINA E.P.

------------------------------------------ ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STEPHANIE M., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, AND JOHNNY N., RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

ALAN BIRNHOLZ, EAST AMHERST, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

DAVID C. SCHOPP, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CHARLES D. HALVORSEN OF COUNSEL), FOR CLAUDINA E.P.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered January 26, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order, among other things, placed respondent Stephanie M. under the supervision of petitioner.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from three orders, each of which adjudicated one of her three children to be neglected and placed the mother under the supervision of petitioner. The findings of neglect were based on, inter alia, the mother’s violation of an order of protection requiring respondent father to stay away from the mother and her home and prohibiting him from visiting the children unless a court order was entered authorizing such visitation. We reject thecontention of the mother in each appeal that the evidence at the factfinding hearing was insufficient to support the adjudications of neglect ( see generally Family Ct Act § 1051 [a]). The record establishes that the mother left at least one of the subject children at her home in the care of the father, despite her awareness of his violent tendencies and in knowing violation of the order of protection. We therefore conclude “that there is a sound and substantial basis to support Family Court’s finding that the child[ren were] in imminent danger of impairment as a result of [the mother’s] failure to exercise a minimum degree of care” ( Matter of Paul U ., 12 AD3d 969, 971; see § 1012 [f] [i]; Matter of Angelina W. , 43 AD3d-2- 128 CAF 11-00271

1370).

Entered: January 31, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
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 AI Document Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Cohen, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Mark Cohen Mark Cohen Title: President and Chief Financial Officer   May 17, 2011
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 3049

To increase the maximum amount of marketing loan gains and loan deficiency

payments that an agricultural producer may receive during the 2000

crop year.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 14, 2000

Mr. FITZGERALD, (for himself, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. ASHCROFT, and Mr. DURBIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To increase the maximum amount of marketing loan gains

and loan deficiency payments that an agricultural producer may receive during the 2000 crop year.

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON MARKETING LOAN GAINS AND

4 LOAN DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS DURING THE

5 2000 CROP YEAR.

6 (a) LIMITATION.—Notwithstanding section 1001(2)

7 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(2)), the

8 total amount of the payments specified in section 1001(3)

9 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 1308(3)) that a person shall be enti-
2

•S 3049 IS

1 tled to receive under the Agricultural Market Transition

2 Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) for 1 or more contract com3 modities and oilseeds produced during the 2000 crop year

4 may not exceed $150,000.

5 (b) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN 2000 MARKETINGS.—

6 In the case of a producer that marketed or redeemed, be7 fore, on, or within 30 days after the date of the enactment

8 of this Act, a quantity of an eligible 2000 crop for which

9 the producer has not received a loan deficiency payment

10 or marketing loan gain under section 134 or 135 of the

11 Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7234, 7235)

12 as a result of the limitation otherwise in effect under sec13 tion 1001(2) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.

14 1308(2)) in the absence of subsection (a), the producer

15 shall be eligible to receive a payment from the Secretary

16 of Agriculture in an amount equal to the payment or gain

17 that the producer would have received for that quantity

18 of eligible production as of the date on which the producer

19 lost beneficial interest in the quantity or redeemed the

20 quantity, as determined by the Secretary.

21 (c) USE OF COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION.—

22 The Secretary shall use the funds, facilities, and authori23 ties of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out this

24 section.

Æ
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 Arkona,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the  quarterly  period  ended  September  30,  2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Alan
Rudd, Chief Executive  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 to the best of my knowledge:

     (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/ Alan Rudd
----------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
November 13, 2006
**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report ofForum National Investments Ltd. (the "**Company**") on Form 20-F/Afor the period ended September 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dan Clozza,Principal Executive and I, Martin Tutschek, Principal Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 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  result of operations of the Company. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

*/s/ Dan Clozza*Dan Clozza, Principal Executive Officer October 26, 2012

*/s/ Martin Tutschek*Martin Tutschek, Principal Financial Officer October 26, 2012

----
<Page>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.20
[MEDICALCV, INC. LETTERHEAD]



30 August 2001

Allan Seck
Sr. Vice President Marketing & Sales
MedicalCV, Inc.

Dear Al:

As further clarification of your Employment Agreement dated 5 May 1999 with
MedicalCV, Inc., the following are additional points of clarification.

          o       Incentive payment of 1% of sales above $3.5 million will be
                  paid through fiscal 2002.
          o       A new executive & sales incentive plan will be developed
                  which you will be included in.
          o       An increase in  compensation  not to exceed 15% to reflect
                  your  promotion to Sr. Vice  President effect 1 October 2001

The new incentive plan must be approved by the Board of Directors in conjunction
with the annual and long range business plan.

Please indicate your understanding and acceptance of the terms outlined above by
signing below.


Regards,

/s/ Blair P. Mowery
-------------------
Blair P. Mowery
President & CEO


Agreed and Accepted:

Signature: /s/ Allan R. Seck
           -----------------
Date:      August 30, 2001
           ---------------
# STATEOFLOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS WARREN E. JOSEPH, JR. NO. 

### 2023 KW 0227 

### MAY 25, 2023 In Re: Warren E. Joseph, Jr., 

### applying 

## for supervisory writs,

17th Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafourche, No. 

### 248207. BEFORE: GUIDRY, 

### C.J., WOLFE AND MILLER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. See La. Code Crim. P. art. 

### 930.8. JMG EW SMM



### COURT OFAPPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT



### DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
#### The State of Iowa, Appellee, v. J. C. Cantonwine, Appellant.

Appeal,: record: affirmance.

*Appeal from Jones District Court.*— Hon. James D. Giffen, Judge.

Friday, December 18, 1891.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of assault, and from a judgment imposing a fine of ten dollars and costs he *appeals.*

Affirmed.

*715No appearance for either party.

Robinson, J.

The defendant, by an information filed in'justice's court, was accused of the crime of assault and battery. To the charge thus made he entered a plea of not guilty, and also a plea of former' judgment of conviction. He was tried by jury, found guilty as charged in the information, and adjudged to pay afine of twenty dollars and costs. Prom that judgment he appealed to the district court, in which he was again tried, and convicted of the crime of assault, as stated. The ease is submitted in this court on a transcript of the record. This shows, with other portions of the record, the charge of the court to the jury, a motion in arrest of judgment, a motion for a new trial, and a skeleton bill of exceptions. The evidence on which the ease was determined is not contained in the transcript. All the grounds, but one, of the motions specified, were of such a character that the action of the court in overruling them cannot be reviewed, in the absence of the evidence. One of the grounds of the motion for a new trial was alleged error of the court in giving certain paragraphs of its charge tp the jury. We have examined the paragraphs to which objection is made, but do not find any error therein prejudicial to defendant. The charge does not submit to the jury the plea of a former conviction, but the bill of exceptions recites that the cause was tried on the information, and the plea of not guilty, and no objection to such trial is shown. Hence we conclude that the second plea was withdrawn or waived in the district court.

We find nothing in the record to justify a reversal of the judgment of the district court. It is therefore affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
        32.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 **Pursuant
        to 18 United States Code Section 1350**
 
 The
        undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
        the
        quarter ended September 30, 2005 of Nanobac Pharmaceuticals, Incorporated
        (the
        "Company") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
        hereof
        fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
        Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such
        report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
        and
        results of operations of the Company.
  /s/
                    John D
                    Stanton
                John
                  D Stanton
                Chief
                  Financial Officer
                November
                  9, 2005
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Nanobac Pharmaceuticals, Incorporated and will be retained by it and furnished
        to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
   38
Exhibit 11 - Statement  regarding  computation of net income
           per common
          share and common share equivalent.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

(In thousands, except per share data)                Three months       Nine months
                                                        ended              ended
                                                      December 31,      December 31,
                                                         1996               1996
                                                     --------------    --------------

<S>                                                           <C>          <C>
Average shares outstanding ...........................        5,261        5,253
Net effect of dilutive stock options, based
   on the treasury stock method ......................          152          128

                                                             ======       ======
Total shares used in computation .....................        5,413        5,381
                                                             ======       ======

Net income ...........................................       $7,824       $7,754
                                                             ======       ======

Net income per common share and
   common share equivalent ...........................       $ 1.45       $ 1.44
                                                             ======       ======
</TABLE>

                                       35
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 12, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133817 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

COLLEEN J. RUDD,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133817 

 COA: 266633 

WCAC: 04-000094 

BEDFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 27, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 

we REINSTATE the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission 

(WCAC). The Court of Appeals clearly erred by failing to affirm the decision of the 

WCAC, where that decision was supported by the record. MCL 418.861a(14); Mudel v 

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, 462 Mich 691 (2000). 

t0905 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 12, 2007 

 Clerk