alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.a

I, John P. Manning, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund II Limited Partnership;
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:



1. 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;
2. 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
3. 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



1. 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):



1. 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
2. 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.





|Date: February 21, 2006 | /s/ John P. Manning        
|----------------------- | ---------------------------
|                        | John P. Manning            
|                        | Principal Executive Officer
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 2

- 00 422

- C V



### ____________________

IN RE COMMITMENT OF MICHAEL MARKS

________________________________________ _______________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 435th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 05

- 08

- 06849 CV

________________________________________ ________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellant, Michael Marks , filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is

voluntarily made by the appellant prior to any decision of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.1(a)(1). No other party filed notice of appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the

appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________ CHARLES KREGER

Justice

Opinion Delivered March 14, 2013

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
cbco_ex101.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


FOURTH AMENDMENT


TO THE


LOWCOUNTRY NATIONAL BANK


EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT


FOR


GARY HORN












THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT is adopted as of this 26th day of May, 2010, by and between CBC National Bank (formerly known and currently doing business as Lowcountry National Bank), a nationally-chartered commercial bank with offices located in Beaufort, South Carolina (the “Company”), and Gary Horn (the “Executive”).







The Company and the Executive executed the Executive Deferred Compensation Agreement on January 22, 2004, which has been amended by the First, Second and Third Amendments thereto since such date (as amended, the “Agreement”).







The undersigned now hereby amend the Agreement, effective June 1, 2010, for the purpose of revising the interest rate to be credited to the Deferral Account (as defined in the Agreement) prior to the date that benefits become payable under the Agreement.  Therefore, the following changes shall be made:







Section 1.13 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following:







“1.13           [Reserved.]”







Section 3.1.2 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following:







“3.1.2           Interest.  Interest shall be credited on the Deferral Account through May 31, 2010, based upon the provisions of the Agreement in effect prior to June 1, 2010.  From and after June 1, 2010 until the commencement of the benefit payments under this Agreement, unless otherwise stated, interest is to be credited on the Deferral Account on a monthly basis at the appropriate tiered rate paid by the Company on its money market accounts to depositors.  The rate to be credited for any such calendar month shall be the tiered rate available to depositors as of the first day of such calendar month based upon the balance of the Deferral Account as of the last day of the immediately preceding calendar month.”







Except as specifically amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this Fourth Amendment.












IN WITNESS OF THE ABOVE, the Company and the Executive hereby consent to this Fourth Amendment.


 


 




	Executive:	 	 CBC National Bank	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
/s/ Gary Horn

	 	By:  	
/s/ Suellen Rodeffer Garner 

	 
	
Gary Horn

	 	 	
Suellen Rodeffer Garner 

	 
	
 

	 	 
Title: 

	
Chairman of the Board
#### Allan W. VIRGIN v. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

85-283

702 S.W.2d 9

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered January 21, 1986

*93Appellant, *pro se.*

*Steve Clark,*Att’y Gen., by: *Theodore Holder,*Asst. Att’y Gen., for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant who is an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction sought a writ of mandamus from the circuit court to compel the Department to reassess his parole eligibility status. The circuit court denied the petition and the record has now been lodged on appeal. We denied appellant’s first motion for appointment of counsel in this appeal because he stated no grounds. He has filed a motion to reconsider, contending that he has a right to counsel.

In criminal cases the accused has a constitutional right to counsel at trial. There is no corresponding right to counsel in a postconviction proceeding, *Dyer v. State,*258 Ark. 494, 527 S.W.2d 622 (1975), or in a civil action. *See Peterson*v. *Nadler,*452 F.2d 754 (8th Cir.1971); *see also Johnson*v. *Teasdale,*456 F. Supp. 1083 (W. D. Mo. 1978). Since a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the computation of parole eligibility is a civil action, neither the circuit court nor this Court is obligated to provide an attorney to perfect an appeal if the petition is denied.

In those cases where the appellant is able to make a substantial showing that he is entitled to relief and that he cannot *94proceed without counsel, however, we will appoint an attorney on appeal. Appellant here has not established that the circumstances of his case require appointment of counsel.

Motion denied.

Purtle, J., not participating.
T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-10-00842- CV In re David Dwi ght Doran ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM B ELL COUNTY M E M O R AN D U M O P I N I O N P ER CURIAM

The pe tition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and Rose Filed: F ebrua

ry 18, 2011
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________
No. 12

- 14143 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:11

- cr

- 00631

- JSM

- MAP

- 15

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus

ROCKE WILLIAM DILBERT
,
Defendant

- Appellant.

__________________________ Appeal from the Unit ed States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________ (May 20, 2013)

Before CARNES
, BARKETT and MARTIN, Circuit Judges

.
PER CURIAM:

Andres Oliveros , appointed counsel for Rocke Dilbert in this direct criminal
appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed

Case: 12-14143 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 1 of 22 a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744

– 45, 87 S. Ct. 1396 , 1400
(1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel ’ s
assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent
examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel ’ s

moti on to withdraw is GRANTED , and Dilbert’s conviction and sentence are

AFFIRMED

. Case: 12-14143 Date Filed: 05/20/2013 Page: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,269
<SECURITIES>                                     6,972
<RECEIVABLES>                                      320
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,568
<PP&E>                                           2,565
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,790
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,634
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,805
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           104
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,770
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,634
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,530
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,942
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,778
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   553
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  20
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,117)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,722
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,839
<DISCONTINUED>                                (52,354)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (75,193)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (7.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (7.46)
        

</TABLE>
9121

#### STATE v. McCALLA.

(85 S. E. 720.)

Homicide — Manslaughter—Involuntary Manslaughter. — One guilty only of ordinary negligence in handling a pistol, which results in the death of a bystander, may be convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

Before Moore, J., Abbeville,

February, 1915.

Affirmed.

William Henry McCalla was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.

Dismissed.

*Messrs. Graydon & Graydon,*for appellant,

with leave of Court, review the cases in 66 S. C. 423; 86 S. C. 211, and 86 S. C. 213, and cite: 2 Hill 619; 10 Rich. 341; 28 S. C. 29; 2 Strob. 464; 55 S. C. 326; 2 Dewin 215; Foster’s Criminal Daw 302; 2 Bishop Crim. Daw, secs. 642, 643, 744; Hawkins, P. C. (Curw. Ed.), p. 89, sec. 1; 21 Cyc. 760, 765; 66 S. C. 422.

*Mr. Solicitor Cooper,*for respondent.

June 28, 1915.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

This is an appeal from the sentence imposed upon the defendant, who was convicted of manslaughter. The question is whether a person is subject to conviction for involuntary manslaughter, when he' is only guilty of ordinary negligence in handling a pistol which results in the killing of a bystander. The following cases show that the exceptions raising this question cannot be sustained. *State*v. *Gilliam,*66 S. C. 419; 45 S. E. 6; *State*v. *Tucker,*86 S. C. *304211, 68 S. E. 523; *State*v. *Revels,*86 S. C. 213, 86 S. E. 523.

The appellant’s attorneys upon request were granted permission to review said cases, but this Court is satisfied that they embody sound propositions of law, and see no reasons for overruling the principles upon which they were decided.

Appeal dismissed.

Footnote. — As to homicide caused by negligence or carelessness, see notes in 3 L. R. A. 645, 61 L. R. A. 277*et seq., 63 L.*R. A. *292, 30 L.*R. A. (N. S.) 458, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 403, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 559, 13 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 42.

Mr. Justice Watts,

*dissenting.*The Judge’s charge, in my opinion, was erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant. In accidental killing only is defendant guilty when he is guilty of gross negligence or criminal carelessness, and not ordinary negligence.
```

EX-99.2 Certification Pursuant to Section 906

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Certification of chief FINANCIAL officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tekron, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Lugi Brun, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Luigi Brun
    ----------
    Luigi Brun
    Chief Financial Officer
    August 12, 2003
```
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
10.40

    


    Maximum
Amount Guarantee Contract between Mr. Or Siu Shun and Quanzhou Branch of Bank of
Communication (No.: 3550052009B100000707)

    


    Note:
This contract is accessory to the General Credit Contract between Guanke and
Quanzhou Branch of Bank of Communication (No.:
3550052009C000001300).

    


    
      
        	
                Date:

              	 	
                April
      8, 2009

              
	 
      	 	 
      
	
                Guarantor:

              	 	
                Mr.
      Or Siu Shun

              
	 
      	 	 
      
	
                Creditor:

              	 	
                Quanzhou
      Branch of Bank of Communication, located at 550 Fengze Street,
      Quanzhou

              
	 
      	 	 
      
	
                Maximum
      amount secured by the guarantor:

              	 	
                RMB24
      million

              
	 
      	 	 
      
	
                Categories:

              	 	
                Joint
      and several

              
	 
      	 	 
      
	
                Term:

              	 	
                Each
      guarantee period is from the expiry date of each debt performance period
      or the date of advanced payment by the creditor to the two years after the
      expiry date of the last debt or the date of advanced payment by the
      creditor.

              
	 
      	 	 
      
	
                Governing
      law

              	 	
                Laws
      of the People’s Republic of
China
Case: 1:17-cv-00645-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/26/17 Page: 1 of 18 PAGEID #: 1
Case: 1:17-cv-00645-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/26/17 Page: 2 of 18 PAGEID #: 2
Case: 1:17-cv-00645-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/26/17 Page: 3 of 18 PAGEID #: 3
Case: 1:17-cv-00645-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/26/17 Page: 4 of 18 PAGEID #: 4
Case: 1:17-cv-00645-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/26/17 Page: 5 of 18 PAGEID #: 5
Case: 1:17-cv-00645-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/26/17 Page: 6 of 18 PAGEID #: 6
Case: 1:17-cv-00645-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/26/17 Page: 7 of 18 PAGEID #: 7
Case: 1:17-cv-00645-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/26/17 Page: 8 of 18 PAGEID #: 8
Case: 1:17-cv-00645-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/26/17 Page: 9 of 18 PAGEID #: 9
Case: 1:17-cv-00645-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/26/17 Page: 10 of 18 PAGEID #: 10
Case: 1:17-cv-00645-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/26/17 Page: 11 of 18 PAGEID #: 11
Case: 1:17-cv-00645-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/26/17 Page: 12 of 18 PAGEID #: 12
Case: 1:17-cv-00645-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/26/17 Page: 13 of 18 PAGEID #: 13
Case: 1:17-cv-00645-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/26/17 Page: 14 of 18 PAGEID #: 14
Case: 1:17-cv-00645-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/26/17 Page: 15 of 18 PAGEID #: 15
Case: 1:17-cv-00645-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/26/17 Page: 16 of 18 PAGEID #: 16
Case: 1:17-cv-00645-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/26/17 Page: 17 of 18 PAGEID #: 17
Case: 1:17-cv-00645-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/26/17 Page: 18 of 18 PAGEID #: 18
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                           AMC, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
          FOR THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 2, 1995 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 1996



<TABLE>
<S>                                                                        <C>          
Net Earnings                                                               $7,300,598   
Weighted average number of outstanding common shares                       61,962,751   
Primary earnings per common share and common share equivalent              $      .12   
                                                                           ==========   
Assumed earnings increases upon exercise of warrants                       
and reduction of debt                                                      $  762,000                

Adjusted net earnings                                                       8,062,598   
Additional shares assumed issued upon exercise of warrants                 16,736,548              
                                                                           
                                                                                        
Adjusted weighted average number of outstanding common shares              78,699,299   
Fully diluted earnings per common share and common share equivalent               .10   
                                                                           ==========   
</TABLE>
Subsidiaries of the Registrant

1) Magnum Hunter Production, Inc., a Texas corporation
2) Gruy Petroleum Management Co., a Texas corporation
3) Hunter Gas Gathering, Inc., a Texas corporation
4) ConMag Energy Corporation, a Texas corporation
5) Rampart Petroleum, Inc., a Texas corporation
6) Bluebird Energy, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1699

MICHAEL EDWARD KENNEDY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

L. BRUCE WADE, Judge, District Court of Maryland for 

Wicomico County; ROBERT M. BELL, Chief Judge, Court of 

Appeals for the State of Maryland; SALLY D. ADKINS, Judge, 

Court of Appeals for the State of Maryland; GLENN T HARRELL, 

JR., Judge, Court of Appeals for the State of Maryland; 

LYNNE ANN BATTAGLIA, Judge, Court of Appeals for the State 

of Maryland; CLAYTON GREENE, JR., Judge, Court of Appeals 

for the State of Maryland; JOSEPH F. MURPHY, JR., Judge, 

Court of Appeals for the State of Maryland; MARY ELLEN 

BARBERA, Judge, Court of Appeals for the State of Maryland, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:09-cv-01433-RDB) 

Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009 

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael Edward Kennedy, Appellant Pro Se. Kendra Young Ausby, 

Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Michael Edward Kennedy appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing his motion seeking a temporary restraining 

order and preliminary injunction. We have reviewed the record 

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

reasons stated by the district court. Kennedy v. Wade, No. 

1:09-cv-01433-RDB (D. Md. June 8, 2009). We deny Kennedy’s 

motion for injunctive relief. 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 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A - 14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934 AND AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. 1350)


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Spear & Jackson, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick J. Dyson,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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/ Patrick J. Dyson
____________________

Patrick J. Dyson
Chief Financial Officer

February 17, 2005
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 09

- 00134

- CV

IN RE DENNIS DAVIS A ND GAIL DAVIS

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna , and

Just ice Davis

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed May 7, 2009

[OT 06]
Opinion issued August 15, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 13
- 00315
- CV

——————————— HARRIS COUNTY APPRAI SAL DISTRICT , Appellant V. TEXAS WORKFORCE COMM ISSION AND JIMMY MOR ENO , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2012
- 25985

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Harris County Appraisal District (“HCAD”), has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. A ppellee Texas Workforce Commission has filed a response in opposition to HCAD’s motion to dismiss , arguing that this appeal should not be dismissed because resolution of this appeal on the merits “is likely dispositive of”2

14 cases currently pending in the trial courts and would therefore “serve the purpose of judicial economy.” 1 The Commission, however, did not file a notice of appeal , nor does it contend that it is seeking any relief from the trial court’s judgment in this case

. See T EX
. R. A PP . P. 25.1(c), 26.1(a), (d) , 42.1(a)(1)

. The motion complies with Rule 42.1. Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Sharp and Massenga le.

1 Texas Workforce Commission also objects to HCAD’s motion based on HCAD’s failure to confer with the Commission prior to filing the motion. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 10.1(a)(5). This objection does not, however, provide a substantive basis for denying the motion.