alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Dana Persson, certify that:

1.              I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Golden Oval Eggs, LLC;

2.              Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.              Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.              The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; 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.

 
| Date: January 16, 2007 |   | /s/ Dana Persson        |   |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
**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 Quarterly Report of Community Banks of Georgia,
Inc.  (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Frank
N. Eubanks, Chief Financial 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 the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 This
16 th day of
May, 2005.
 
 
 
 
 
 /s/
Frank N. Eubanks
 Frank N.
Eubanks
 Chief
Financial Officer
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40257

Conference Calendar

 

JERRY E. EASLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BRIAN W. RODEEN, ET AL.

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-92-CV-323

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jerry E. Easley, # 421286, appeals the denial of his motion

for appointment of counsel in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights

action. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying counsel. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't, 811 F.2d

260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986).

AFFIRMED.
MINNESOTA 

#39 #49 0.5% $511 #35 #34 #40

$2.9 B SPENT IN 0.7% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $2.2 B CONTRACT 22,012 NUMBER OF $0.7 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type Construction: 0%

Research and 

Development: 4% Service: 10%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 86%

By Service 

Army

37%

Navy/Marines

30%

Air Force

18%

Other Defense

15%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Active Duty: 2%

Civilian: 13

%

National Guard: 60%

%

Reserve: 25

Allocations, By Service 

Army

72%

Navy/Marines

6%

Air Force

21%

Other Defense

1%

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions)

Northrop Grumman $374.3 M

BAE Systems $307.8 M

Honeywell $304.1 M

Cummins $134.2 M

3M $130.7 M

Alliant Techsystems Operations $122.0 M

General Dynamics $113.0 M

Avtron Industrial Automation Inc. $72.2 M

United Technologies $63.9 M

UnitedHealth Group $63.6 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$4.2 $4.0 $4.0

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17

$3.0

$2.2

FY18

$2.1

$1.0

FY19 FY20

$3.5

$658.8 MILLION 22,012

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National

Duty Guard

Hennepin 355 697 2,210

Ramsey 60 942 1,292

St. Louis 12 320 1,708

Morrison ND 421 1,266

Dakota ND 56 986

Stearns ND 105 521

Washington 0 ND 632

Blue Earth 30 15 258

Crow Wing 25 20 232

Isanti 0 ND 248

Reserve Total

3,795 7,057

863 3,157

103 2,143

0 ND

0 ND

127 ND

0 ND

188 491

99 376

26 ND

64 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

MINNESOTA FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions)

Hennepin

Anoka

Ramsey

Dakota

Blue Earth

Sherburne

Carver

Olmsted

Dodge

Washington

(M = millions)

$1.2 B 

$503.8 M 

$171.9 M 

$132.9 M 

$72.0 M 

$38.2 M 

$25.6 M 

$13.2 M 

$8.4 M 

$7.7 M 

Hennepin

Ramsey

St. Louis

Morrison

Dakota

Blue Earth

Stearns

Washington

Crow Wing

Olmsted

$242.0 M 

$141.9 M 

$59.8 M 

$49.5 M 

$26.8 M 

$18.6 M 

$16.9 M 

$12.6 M 

$8.9 M 

$6.1 M 

Sherburne Anoka 

Hennepin Washington

Ramsey

Carver

Blue Earth Dodge Olmsted

Dakota

St. Louis

Morrison

Crow Wing

Stearns

Hennepin

Ramsey

Dakota

Washington

Blue Earth Olmsted

65
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

KEENAN GIBSON,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee.

§

§ No. 251, 2016

§

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ C.A. No. N16M-04-191

§ 

§

Submitted: August 8, 2016

 Decided: August 15, 2016

O R D E R

This 15th day of August 2016, it appears to the Court that, on July 26, 2016,

the Clerk issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not 

be dismissed for his failure to file his opening brief and appendix in this matter. 

The appellant failed to respond to the notice to show cause within the required tenday period; therefore, dismissal of this action is deemed to be unopposed under 

Supreme Court Rule 3(b)(2).

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura_

Justice
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4927 

To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor to 

Danny P. Dietz, formerly of Littleton, Colorado, for acts of valor on 

June 28, 2005, while fighting against the Taliban in Konar Province, 

Afghanistan. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2007 

Mr. TANCREDO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize and request the President to award the Medal 

of Honor to Danny P. Dietz, formerly of Littleton, Colorado, for acts of valor on June 28, 2005, while fighting 

against the Taliban in Konar Province, Afghanistan. 

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


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4927 IH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION AND REQUEST FOR AWARD 

2 OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO DANNY DIETZ FOR 

3 ACTS OF VALOR WHILE FIGHTING AGAINST 

4 THE TALIBAN IN KONAR PROVINCE, AFGHAN5 ISTAN. 

6 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized 

7 and requested to award the Medal of Honor under section 

8 3741 of title 10, United States Code, to Danny Dietz, for9 merly of Littleton, Colorado, for the acts of valor described 

10 in subsection (b). 

11 (b) ACTION DESCRIBED.—The acts of valor referred 

12 to in subsection (a) are the actions of Danny P. Dietz 

13 on June 28, 2005, in Konar Province, Afghanistan, while 

14 fighting against the Taliban, when, as a Petty Officer 2nd 

15 Class in the United States Navy, he demonstrated extraor16 dinary heroism in the face of grave danger, fighting val17 iantly against the numerically superior and positionally 

18 advantaged enemy force. After the crash of a Chinook res19 cue helicopter sent to extract his team from the area, 

20 Dietz advanced on the enemy in an attempt to reach a 

21 location where he could establish radio communications. 

22 Although mortally wounded, Dietz held his position, fight23 ing back the enemy to give one of his SEAL team mem24 bers an opportunity to escape. 

25 (c) WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS.—The award 

26 under subsection (a) may be made without regard to the 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HR 4927 IH

1 time limitations specified in section 3744(b) of title 10, 

2 United States Code, or any other time limitation estab3 lished by law or regulation with respect to the awarding 

4 of certain medals to persons who served in the Army. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
DUFF V.LINEBERGER.

No. COA04-335.

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed August 2, 2005.

Certification Date August 22, 2005.

Appeal from the Mecklenburg (03CVD19820)

Case reported without published opinion Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant To18 U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant ToSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofHospira, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),I, Thomas E. Werner, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/  THOMAS E.  WERNER    |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
| Thomas E. Werner                    |
| Senior Vice President,  Finance and |
| Chief Financial Officer             |
| November 8, 2007                    |

 

1

----
JAY ISLE ASSOCIATES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 11 Fenimore Drive, Scotch Plains, NJ 07076 o (908)889-8843 o Fax:(908)889-1634


July 30, 1997

Mr. Jerry Braun
Chief Executive Officer
New York Health Care, Inc.
1850 McDonald Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11223

Dear Mr. Braun:

Thank you for the opportunity to learn more about your plans for New York
Health Care. My broad experience in the healthcare industry and specific
knowledge in the home healthcare segment could be very valuable to your
organization. I think you and Jacob and your Board of Directors will find that I
am easy to work with and responsive to your needs. In order to formalize our
relationship, you asked that I prepare a proposal on how to best utilize my
skills and knowledge in helping New York Health Care achieve its objectives.

In the case of acquisitions, should I introduce a candidate company or a
revenue producing product line to New York Health Care and the transaction
closes, I will be entitled to a fee based upon the formula listed below.

                            TRANSACTION FEE SCHEDULE

Payment due upon closing:

                 5% of the first $5 million  of the  purchase price.  
                 4% of the next $1 million  increment of the  purchase  price.
                 3% of the  next $1 million  increment of the purchase price.
                 2% of the  next  $1  million  increment  of the purchase price.
                 1% of the remaining purchase price.

Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this proposal, please  call me
at your earliest convenience. I look forward to our next meeting.

Best regards,


H. Gene Berger
STATE v. LITTLE.

No. COA04-447.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 7, 2005.

Certification Date June 27, 2005.

Appeal from Guilford (02CRS23574, 02CRS23575)

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
The Honorable John B. Jones, United States District Judge for 1

the District of South Dakota.

___________

No. 95-2895

___________

Patrick Barnett, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

Joe Class, Warden, South Dakota *

Penitentiary; Lt. Young, *

employed at South Dakota State * Appeal from the United States

Penitentiary as guard; Lt. * District Court for the

Ditiston, employed at South * District of South Dakota.

Dakota State Penitentiary as *

guard; Sgt. Baker, employed at * [UNPUBLISHED]

South Dakota State Penitentiary *

as guard; Officer Nuterton, *

employed at South Dakota State *

Penitentiary as guard; Lynne *

Delano, Sec. for SDSP located *

in Pierre, SD; Major Severson; *

Jim Ross; Prison Health Services,*

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: December 17, 1996

 Filed: January 3, 1997

___________

Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Patrick Barnett appeals from the district court's grant of summary 1

judgment to defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he claimed

primarily that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious

medical needs and used excessive force
-2-

against him. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs,

we conclude the district court correctly entered judgment in favor of

defendants. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny

Barnett's motion to supplement the record on appeal, as the document he

wished to submit was already a part of the record.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF COSTILLA ENERGY INC. FOR THE YEAR END
DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          12,618
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,038
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,409
<PP&E>                                         147,379
<DEPRECIATION>                                (20,435)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 162,790
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,089
<BONDS>                                        100,262
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,047
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,522
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   162,790
<SALES>                                         53,919
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,026
<CGS>                                           21,774
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,324
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,430
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,281
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,753
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,218
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                535
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (4,975)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,370)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.29)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2016242EN.01005201.xml

| 2.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/52

---

Corrigendum to Commission Recommendation of 28 June 2016 on the monitoring of the presence of nickel in feed

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 235 of 29 June 2016
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 235 of 29 June 2016

(2016/C 242/11)

The publication of Commission Recommendation 2016/C 235/01 is to be considered null and void.

---
(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, was made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report was being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over
financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements
for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal year that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ RICK D. SIMPSONRick D. SimpsonChief Financial Officer and Controller
Christopher YOUNG v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA., City of Fayetteville, April S. Wortham, Ophelia Pechie, and Shannon Steck Peele.

No. 54A04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 3, 2005.

Susan K. Burkhart, Raleigh, for Great American Ins. Co. of NY.

J. David Stradley, Raleigh, for Wortham, Pechie, Peele.

Mark Davis, Raleigh, for City of Fayetteville.

William Peregoy, Wilmington, for Young.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants (Wortham, Pechie and Peele) on the 15th day of November 2004 for rehearing of the decision of this Court pursuant to Rule 31, N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of February 2005."
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24A1492. WILLIE G. SMITH v. WALTON RESIDENTIAL SERVICES.

This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. Following

an adverse ruling, defendant Willie Smith appealed to the superior court, which

granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Smith then appealed directly

to this Court. We lack jurisdiction.

Appeals from superior court decisions reviewing lower court decisions must be

initiated by filing an application for discretionary review. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1), (b);

Bullock v. Sand, 260 Ga.App. 874, 875 (581 SE2d 333) (2003). “Compliance with the

discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.”Smoak v.Dept.of Human Resources,

221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996). Smith’s failure to follow the proper

procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

May 24, 2024

05/24/2024
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 Quarterly Report of New York Mortgage Trust, Inc., (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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:
                  May 15, 2007
              
              /s/ Steven
                    R. MummaSteven
                    R. MummaChief
                    Financial Officer