alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Gregory J. Dawson, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kentucky Bancshares,
Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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
quarterly report is being prepared;
(b)	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
(c)	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 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 registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
(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.
Date:    August 14, 2006
BY  /s/ Gregory J. Dawson
Gregory J. Dawson
Chief Financial Officer

25
Lexlibrary/197885.1
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 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,
William A. Mobley, Jr., Chief Executive 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/ William A. Mobley, Jr.
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              William A. Mobley, Jr.
                                              Chief Executive 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.
RYDER SCOTT COMPANY                                           Fax (713) 651-0849
PETROLEUM ENGINEERS
1100 Louisiana  Suite 3800   Houston, Texas 77002-5218  Telephone (713) 651-9191







                      CONSENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING FIRM
                        AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO ANNUAL REPORT


     We consent to the  reference to our name  included in this Annual Report on
Form  10-K405/A for the year ended  December 31, 1997 for Geodyne  Energy Income
Limited Partnership II-A.


                                          //s// Ryder Scott Company
                                                 Petroleum Engineers

                                          RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                          PETROLEUM ENGINEERS




Houston, Texas
July 27, 1998
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1984

To prohibit the transfer of a handgun by a licensed dealer unless the transferee states that the transferee is not the subject of a restraining order

with respect to an intimate partner of the transferee, a child of the

transferee, or a child of an intimate partner of the transferee.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 24, 1998

Mr. LAUTENBERG introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To prohibit the transfer of a handgun by a licensed dealer

unless the transferee states that the transferee is not

the subject of a restraining order with respect to an

intimate partner of the transferee, a child of the transferee, or a child of an intimate partner of the transferee.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 1984 IS

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF THE TRANSFER OF A HAND2 GUN BY A LICENSED DEALER UNLESS THE

3 TRANSFEREE STATES THAT THE TRANS4 FEREE IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF A RESTRAIN5 ING ORDER WITH RESPECT TO AN INTIMATE

6 PARTNER OF THE TRANSFEREE, A CHILD OF

7 THE TRANSFEREE, OR A CHILD OF AN INTI8 MATE PARTNER OF THE TRANSFEREE.

9 Section 922(s)(3)(B) of title 18, United States Code,

10 is amended—

11 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (vi);

12 and

13 (2) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (vii);

14 and

15 (3) by adding at the end the following:

16 ‘‘(viii) is not subject to a court order

17 that—

18 ‘‘(I) restrains the transferee from

19 harassing, stalking, or threatening an inti20 mate partner of the transferee or child of

21 such intimate partner or transferee, or en22 gaging in other conduct that would place

23 an intimate partner in reasonable fear of

24 bodily injury to the partner or child;

25 ‘‘(II) was issued after a hearing of

26 which the transferee received actual notice,
3

•S 1984 IS

1 and at which the transferee had the oppor2 tunity to participate; and

3 ‘‘(III)(aa) includes a finding that the

4 transferee represents a credible threat to

5 the physical safety of such intimate part6 ner or child; or

7 ‘‘(bb) by its terms explicitly prohibits

8 the use, attempted use, or threatened use

9 of physical force against such intimate

10 partner or child that would reasonably be

11 expected to cause bodily injury;’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ANNUAL
REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
FOR THE ANNUAL PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         823,494
<SECURITIES>                                 1,687,737
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,246,896
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,980,554
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          371,946
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,714,139
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,980,554
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               441,466
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               741,846
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              87,299
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (877,394)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (877,394)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (877,394)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (33.98)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (33.98)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS IS NET LOSS PER $1,000 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT.
</FN>


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 47294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18192]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-32-2021]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 38--Charleston, South Carolina, 
Authorization of Production Activity, BMW Manufacturing Company, LLC 
(Passenger Motor Vehicles), Spartanburg, South Carolina

    On April 21, 2021, BMW Manufacturing Company, LLC submitted a 
notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its 
facility within Subzone 38A, in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (86 FR 22932, April 30, 2021). On 
August 19, 2021, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision 
that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The 
production activity described in the notification was authorized, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including 
Section 400.14.

    Dated: August 19, 2021.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18192 Filed 8-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### In the Matter of Jerome Wright, Appellant, v Charles J. Scully et al., Respondents.

The petitioner was confined to a special housing unit and charged with misbehavior following an altercation with a correctional officer. He contends that he was deprived of due process of law because of inadequate assistance by the inmate assistant he selected to aid in the preparation of his defense *(see,*7 NYCRR 251-4.1 [a] [2]). The respondents do not dispute that the inmate assistant neglected to report the results of his investigation of the incident to the petitioner prior to the hearing, as required by 7 NYCRR 251-4.2. However, under the circumstances of this case, we find no violation of the petitioner’s due process rights. The hearing record demonstrates that despite the inmate assistant’s failure to fulfill his obligations, mainly in reporting the results of the investigation to the petitioner, the petitioner was fully able to examine all his witnesses and present his defense to the Hearing Officer *(cf. People ex rel. Selcov v Coughlin,*98 AD2d 733; *Matter of Mallard v Dalsheim,*97 AD2d 545). Furthermore, we note that the petitioner raised no objection at the hearing with regard to the performance of his inmate assistant and was not prejudiced by the testimony presented on his behalf *(see, Matter of Humphries v Coughlin,*112 AD2d 561). Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2



I, Daniel L. Hefner, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of American Commerce Solutions, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior
to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and



c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal controls; and



6. The
registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



|                                     |  |                                               |  |                 
|------------------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------
|/s/ Daniel L. HefnerDaniel L. Hefner |  | Chief Executive Officer, President & Director |  | January 16, 2006
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

/ 

TODD GIFF/ 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

et al., 

Respondents. 

AIKEN, Chief Judge: 

No. 6:15-cv-1341-CL 

0 R D E R 

Magistrate Judge Clarke filed his Findings and 

Recommendation on July 28, 2015. The matter is now before me 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 

7 2 (b) ( 3) . When a party objects to any portion of the 

1 - ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01341-CL Document 11 Filed 09/16/15 Page 1 of 2
Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must 

make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate's 

report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (B); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 

Commodore Bus. Machs., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. 

denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). 

Petitioner Todd Giffen filed objections (docs. 8 and 9) to 

the Findings and Recommendation. Defendants declined to file any 

response. I have, therefore, given the file of this case a de 

novo review. I ADOPT the Magistrate's Findings and 

Recommendation (doc. 6), and DISMISS the petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus (doc. 2) for failure to state a claim. For the 

reasons stated in the Findings and Recommendation, I also REVOKE 

petitioner's in forma pauperis status. The Clerk of the Court is 

ordered to enter a judgment dismissing this proceeding in its 

entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this day of September 2015. 

Ann Aiken 

United States District Judge 

2 - ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-01341-CL Document 11 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 3:15-cv-01493-BR Document 5 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 3:15-cv-01493-BR Document 5 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 2
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

August 11 , 2022.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00311

- CV

IN RE MORTON AND 285 5

- NW,LLC , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 506th Judicial District Court Wall e r County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. CV22

- 04

- 0436



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 28, 2022 , relator Morton and 2855

- NW,LLC filed a petition for
writ of m andamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition
, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Gary W. Chaney, presiding judge of the 506th Judicial District Court of Waller County
, to reverse the trial court ’ s April 27, 2022 temporary restrai ning orde r , an d vacate the writ of injuncti on

.2

On July 25, 2022, relator ’ s counsel notifi ed the C lerk of this Court that the parties had resolved and settled their di spute in the underlying litigation. On August 3 , 2022, relator fi led a n unopposed motion to dismiss its petition for writ of
mandamus unde r Texas R u le of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1)

. Accordingly , w e grant relator ’ s motion to dismiss

. W e d ismiss rel ator ’ s petition for writ of mandamus

. Additionally, our April
28 , 2022 stay is lifted.

PE R CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Wise, Poissan t, and Wilson.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LEODEGARIO SALVADOR , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. NATIONAL DEFAULT SER VIC ING C ORPOR ATION a nd W ELLS FAR GO B ANK, NA, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17456 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-01011-JC M
GW F
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2015 ** B e fore : TASHIM A , OW ENS, a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. Le ode ga rio Sa lva dor a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing his dive

rsity a c tion se e king to quie t title . W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w de n ovo a dism issa l for fa ilure to sta te a c la im unde r 

# FIL ED
N OV 25 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Fe de ra l R

ule of C i vil Proc e dure 12(b)(6). He bbev . Plile r , 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th C ir. 2010). W e re ve rse and re m and. The distric t c ourt dismisse d Sa lva d or’ s suit on the ba sis of its de t e rm i nation that a hom e owne r’ s a ssoc iation’ s (“ HOA” ) nonjudic i a l fore c losure ba se d on a supe r-priority

lie n unde r Ne va da

la w doe s not e xtinguish a

first se c urity de e d of trust. Howe ve r, the Ne va da Supre m e C ourt ha s sinc e he ld in SFR Inv e stme nts Pool 1, LLC v . U.S. Bank , N .A. , 334 P.3d 408 (Ne v . 2014), tha t an HOA ha s a

true supe r-priority

lie n on a prope rty for nine m onths of unpai d a sse ssm e nts, a nd nonjudic ia l fore c losure on this lien e x tinguishe s a ll othe r inte re sts in tha t prope rty . Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt’ s dism i ssa l, to thee xte nt it wa s ba se d on a c ontra ry inte rpre tation of theNe va da HOA supe r-priority

sta t utory sc he m e , wa s e rrone ous. Se e , e .g. , Oly mpicSports Prods., Inc . v . Univ e rsal Athle ticSale s C o . , 760 F.2d 910, 913 (9th C ir. 1985) (fe de ra l c ourts “ are bound to follow the de c isions of a sta te ’ s highe st c ourt in interpre ting tha t sta te ’ s la w” ). This re m an d is without pre judic e to the due proc e ss a rgum e nt a nd a rgum e nt ba se d on the Gle nvie w W e st Townhom e s Assoc iation’ s C o ve n a n ts, C onditions & R e stric tions, whic h the distric t c ourt m ay a ddre ss in thefirst insta

nc e . Sa lva dor’ s m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt is de nie d a s m oot. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

1 3
- 1 7 4 5 6 2