alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Ralph T. Finkenbrink certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB ofNicholas Financial, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
 a) all significant deficiencies in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role inthe small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: August 14, 2004   /s/ Ralph T. Finkenbrink Ralph T. Finkenbrink Senior Vice President — Finance and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 4.20


                              Fourth Amendment to
                              Amended and Restated
                      Certificate of Limited Partnership of
                Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership II-B


     The undersigned,  desiring to amend its amended and restated  certificate
of limited  partnership  pursuant  to the  Oklahoma  Revised  Uniform  Limited
Partnership Act, as amended,  Okla.  Stat. tit. 54 (1993),  Section 301 et seq
(the "Act"), do hereby state:

1.    The name of the  limited  partnership  is Geodyne  Energy  Income  Limited
      Partnership II-B.

2.    The dates of filing of the  Certificate  of  Limited  Partnership  and all
      amendments thereto are as follows:

      Name                                                    Date
      Agreement and Certificate of Limited
            Partnership                                       11/6/87
      Amended and Restated Certificate of
            Limited Partnership                               3/10/89
      First Amendment to Amended and Restated
            Certificate of Limited Partnership                2/25/93
      Second Amendment to Amended and Restated
            Certificate of Limited Partnership                7/19/96
      Third Amendment to Amended and Restated
              Certificate of Limited Partnership              11/21/01

3.  The  Third  Amendment  to  Amended  and  Restated   Certificate  of  Limited
Partnership  dated November 14, 2001,  and filed with the Oklahoma  Secretary of
State on November 21,  2001,  stated that the latest date upon which the limited
partnership  is to dissolve is December  31,  2003.  Pursuant to its terms,  the
Agreement and  Certificate  of Limited  Partnership  dated October 14, 1987 (the
"Partnership  Agreement")  was amended on November 18,  2003,  to state that the
latest date upon which the  Partnership  is to dissolve  is December  31,  2005,
provided that the General  Partner may extend the term of the Partnership for up
to three additional  periods of two years each pursuant to the provisions of the
Partnership Agreement.

      Therefore,  the Amended and Restated Certificate of Limited Partnership is
hereby  revised  to state that the latest  date on which the  Partnership  is to
dissolve  is  December  31,  2005,  subject  to  extension  as set  forth in the
Partnership's Partnership Agreement.

      Dated:  November 21, 2003.

                                          GEODYNE RESOURCES, INC.
                                          General Partner

                                          By://s// Dennis R. Neill
                                          -------------------------
                                          Dennis R. Neill, President
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 USC SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Medallion Financial Corp. (the Company) for the quarter ending June 30, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
based on 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



|                                                                |  |                  
|--------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------
|                                                                | 
|By:                                                             |  | /s/ Larry D. Hall
|Larry D. Hall
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
|

Date: August 5, 2010



Page 59 of 59
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
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 Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

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

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


Date:        August 14, 2008        By  /s/ Louis Prichard
                                    Louis Prichard
                                    President & Chief Executive Officer

Date:        August 14, 2008        By  /s/ Gregory J. Dawson
                                    Gregory J. Dawson
                                    Chief Financial Officer



27
Lexlibrary/197885.1
EXHIBIT 32.2

          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 annual report of 110 Media Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May ___, 2006 (the "Report"), I,
Darren Cioffi, 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/ Darren Cioffi
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Darren Cioffi
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                 May ___, 2006

A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
PAGE 1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JOHN M. WASSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:15-cv-1279-SU

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan issued Findings and Recommendation in 

this case on February 9, 2021. Judge Sullivan recommended that this Court deny Plaintiffs 

petition to return property. No party has filed objections.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, 

“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified 

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

Case 2:15-cv-01279-SU Document 100 Filed 03/22/21 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 – ORDER

If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. 

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], 

intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are 

filed.”); United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding 

that the court must review de novo magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations if objection 

is made, “but not otherwise”). 

Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the Act “does not preclude 

further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” 

Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 

recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court review the magistrate judge’s 

findings and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”

No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory 

Committee and reviews Judge Sullivan’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the 

face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Sullivan’s 

Findings and Recommendation, ECF 97. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Petition for Return of 

Seized Property and Assessment of Damages (ECF 92).1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2021.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

1 To the extent Plaintiff’s objections filed in Case No. 2:13-cv-1194-SU were intended to 

apply to both that case and this case, the Court would adopt Judge Sullivan’s Findings and 

Recommendation after a de novo review.

Case 2:15-cv-01279-SU Document 100 Filed 03/22/21 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 USC
SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Medallion Financial Corp. (the Company) for the quarter ending September 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on 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 as of
the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



|                                                  |  |                  
|------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------
|By:                                               |  | /s/ Larry D. Hall
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: November 8, 2013
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

492 KA 15-01891 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BENJAMIN SHEPPARD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SESSLER LAW PC, GENESEO (STEVEN D. SESSLER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
GREGORY J. MCCAFFREY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, GENESEO (JOSHUA J. TONRA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Dennis S. Cohen, J.), rendered September 3, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [7]), defendant contends that his plea was not voluntarily, knowingly, or intelligently entered. Defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review inasmuch as he did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL article 440 ( see People v Hill , 128 AD3d 1479, 1480, lv denied 26 NY3d 930). Contrary to defendant’s contention, this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation doctrine inasmuch as nothing in the plea colloquy “casts significant doubt upon the defendant’s guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea” ( People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 666; see Hill , 128 AD3d at 1480). To the extent that defendant’s contention is based upon matters outside the record, he may raise his contention in a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 ( see People v Medina , 132 AD3d 1363, 1364).

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Cropping Systems and Water Quality Research: Columbia, MO
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    ARS Oppportunities
                        ARS OpportunitiesSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Columbia, Missouri Cropping Systems and Water Quality Research People & Locations







Taylor  Flinchpaugh
                        Cropping Systems and Water Quality Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician
                        Phone: (573) 882-8896
                        
                        
                        Fax: (573) 882-1115(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### Automatic Industries, Inc., Respondent, v Cherry Lane Owners Corp., Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 867]

In an action to recover damages for wrongful eviction and conversion, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sher, J.), entered December 6, 2010, which, upon an order of the same court dated September 7, 2010, granting that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to confirm so much of a referee’s report (Dana, Ct. Atty. Ref.) dated April 22, 2010, made after a hearing, as concluded that the plaintiff had been wrongfully evicted and was entitled to receive the principal sum of $22,230.56, and an award of an attorney’s fee and expenses in the sum of $15,148.50, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in accordance with the order.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“This Court possesses the authority to review a determination rendered after a hearing which is as broad as that of the hearing court, and may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case, the referee had the advantage of seeing the witnesses” *(Perez v Fiore,*78 AD3d 1143, 1144 [2010]; *see Vardon, Inc. v Suga Dev., LLC,*36 AD3d 897, 898 [2007]; *Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford,*60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly confirmed the Court Attorney Referee’s determination that the plaintiff was wrongfully evicted from the subject premises. The plaintiff established that it was not properly served with the defendant’s notice of petition and petition in accordance with REAFL 735. In any event, the plaintiff established that it did not violate the rent provision of the lease.

Contrary to the defendant’s further contention, the Supreme Court properly confirmed the Court Attorney Referee’s calculation of compensatory damages for the plaintiffs wrongful eviction. “ ‘The measure of compensatory damages for wrongful eviction is the value of the unexpired term of the lease over and above the rent the lessee must pay under its terms . . . together with any actual damages flowing directly from the wrongful eviction’ ” *(North Main St. Bagel Corp. v Duncan,*37 AD3d 785, *797786 [2007], quoting *Long Is. Airports Limousine Serv. Corp. v Northwest Airlines,*124 AD2d 711, 712 [1986]). Here, both the unexpired term of the lease and the value of the lease over and above the plaintiffs rent were properly calculated. Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Seaford Brown, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (King, J.), rendered October 18, 1984, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On the instant appeal, the defendant argues, *inter alia,*that the trial court committed reversible error in denying a defense motion for a mistrial when his trial counsel, Deputy Public Defender James Brown, Jr., became ill after the jury was selected, and could not proceed. We disagree with the defendant’s argument.

*483The record indicates that the trial court appointed Deputy Public Defender Mario Caviglia, a former Assistant District Attorney and highly experienced attorney in criminal matters, as defense counsel in place of Mr. Brown, and informed him that it would grant him "adequate time” to prepare if he needed it. The newly appointed defense counsel proceeded to handle the case in a competent and diligent manner and never indicated during the course of the trial that he was unable to properly defend his client. Under these circumstances reversal of the judgment of conviction is not warranted *(see, People v Jones,*53 NY2d 789; *People v Leach,*108 AD2d 871).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit *(see, People v Irrizari,*5 NY2d 142; *People v Lee,*109 AD2d 1066, citing *People v Love,*57 NY2d 1023, 1024). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

MELISSA SWIDERSKI, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

~ ) 

) 

CAROLYN W. COL VIN, Commissioner of Social ) 

Security, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

3:14-CV-01959-JO 

ORDER 

Based upon the stipulation of the pmties, it is hereby ORDERED that attomey fees in the 

amount of $1,233.49 shall be awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 2412. The pmties agree that attomey fees will be paid to Plaintiff's attomey, dependent 

upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies for offset against the awarded fees, 

pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as discussed inAstrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). 

If Plaintiff has no such debt, then the check shall be made out to Plaintiff's attomey and 

mailed to Plaintiff's attomey's office as follows: Men111 Schneider, P.O. Box 14490, Portland, 

OR 97293. If Plaintiff has a debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt 

shall be made to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiffs attomey's office at the address stated above. 

DATED this 3o day ofNovember, 2015. 

Case 3:14-cv-01959-JO Document 23 Filed 11/30/15 Page 1 of 1