alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION**
I, Jon C. Parker, Sr. , certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Atlantic Coast Federal Corporation. 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofcircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respect the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 16, 2005   /s/ Jon C. Parker, Sr.     Jon C. Parker, Sr.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

No. 84636



## , FILE

, JUN 2 4 2022 SOUTHERN HILLS MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, D/B/A SOUTHERN HILLS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ERIKA D. BALLOU, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and EMMANUEL GARCIA, Real Party in Interest. ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a medical malpractice action. Having considered the petition and its documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 683, 476 P.3d 1194, 1198 (2020) (declining to grant writ relief when a later appeal was available); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Generally, we will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying motions to dismiss, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I947A allgbs. 

## 2 z.-- 2 

# oo

# I ogeneral rule applies here. Int? Garne Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist.

Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197-98, 179 P.3d 556, 558-59 (2008) (discussing writ petitions challenging denials of motions to dismiss). We therefore

ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Sr.J.

cc: Hon. Erika D. Ballou, District Judge Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC/Las Vegas Burris & Thomas Eighth District Court Clerk

'The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.

2 , C.J. Parraguirre 

# A act uy

, J Pickering
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Lowell R. Selvin, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PlanetOut Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annualreport is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:November 11, 2005                                       /s/ Lowell R Selvin   Lowell R Selvin   Chief Executive Officer  
Page 34
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Petitioner v. TED JACKSON, Respondent

No. 7329SC599

(Filed 12 September 1973)

On *certiorari*to review order of *Thornburg, Judge,*entered at the 23 January 1973 Session of Polk Superior Court.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan by William B. Ray, Assistant Attorney General, and William W. Melvin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*Wm. A. McFarland for defendant appellee.*

BRITT, Judge.

After careful consideration of the record and briefs, we conclude that the writ of certiorari filed in this cause on 18 April 1973 was improvidently allowed.

Dismissed.

Judges Hedrick and Vaughn concur.
Jaime Duarte SIERRA v. Eric A. HOOKS, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Division of Prisons, et al., Timothy McKoy, Superintendent, Franklin Correctional Center

No. 93A93-5

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 21, 2018

Jaime Duarte Sierra, for Sierra, Jaime Duarte.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, Vernon K. Stewart, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 20th of September 2018 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Lee County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of September 2018."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7130

HARRY JARRELL, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. WILLIAM S. HAINES, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:07-cv-00040-FPS-JSK)

Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: March 17, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harry Jarrell, Appellant Pro Se. R. Christopher Smith, Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Harry Jarrell seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El

v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Jarrell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jarrell’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5020 

To require the Federal Communications Commission to extend the time period 

for filing petitions to deny, oppositions, and comments in the proceeding 

relating to the proposed merger of Comcast and NBC Universal. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 14, 2010 

Ms. WATERS (for herself, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. ELLISON, Ms. RICHARDSON, Ms. 

WATSON, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Ms. 

CLARKE, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. SCOTT

of Virginia, Mr. WATT, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. THOMPSON of 

Mississippi, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. FUDGE, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. LEWIS of 

Georgia, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. TOWNS, Ms. 

VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. PIERLUISI, Mr. REYES, Mr. HONDA, Mr. PASTOR of Arizona, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Ms. 

SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. GARAMENDI, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Ms. 

EDWARDS of Maryland, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. FARR, Mr. CLAY, Mr. 

HASTINGS of Florida, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. 

STARK, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. FILNER, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mrs. 

NAPOLITANO, and Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Federal Communications Commission to extend the time period for filing petitions to deny, oppositions, and comments in the proceeding relating to the 

proposed merger of Comcast and NBC Universal. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5020 IH

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

3 SECTION 1. FCC REQUIRED TO EXTEND COMMENT PERIOD. 

4 The Federal Communications Commission shall ex5 tend for 45 days the time period for filing petitions to 

6 deny, oppositions, and comments in the proceeding relat7 ing to the proposed merger of Comcast and NBC Uni8 versal entitled ‘‘Applications of Comcast Corporation, 

9 General Electric Company, and NBC Universal, Inc., to 

10 Assign and Transfer Control of FCC Licenses’’ (Docket 

11 10–56). Such extension shall— 

12 (1) permit petitions to deny, oppositions, and 

13 comments on or before June 17, 2010; 

14 (2) permit responses to petitions to deny, oppo15 sitions, and comments on or before July, 16, 2010; 

16 and 

17 (3) permit replies to such responses on or be18 fore August 1, 2010. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Michael V. Shustek, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director ofVestin Group, Inc., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A (this“Form 10-KSB/A”)of Vestin Group, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofVestin Group, Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. Vestin Group, Inc.’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for Vestin Group,Inc. and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to VestinGroup, Inc., including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; (b) Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-82377 and34-47986; (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of Vestin Group, Inc.’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluations; and (d) Disclosed in this report any changes in Vestin Group, Inc.’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringVestin Group, Inc.’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected or is reasonably likely to materially affect Vestin Group,Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. Vestin Group, Inc.’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to Vestin Group, Inc.’s auditors and the audit committee ofVestin Group, Inc.’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal controls over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect Vestin Group, Inc.’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in Vestin Group,Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting.
/s/ Michael V. ShustekMichael V. ShustekChief Executive Officer, President and DirectorDated: April 14, 2004
STATE of North Carolina v. Alvin Kenneth KEELS

No. 336P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 27, 2019

Marilyn G. Ozer, Attorney at Law, for Keels, Alvin Kenneth.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th of October 2018 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, 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 27th of March 2019."
**EXHIBIT
      31.1**





**CERTIFICATION**








I,
      James
      H. Hirst, certify that:


1.
        I have
        reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Solpower Corporation. (the
        "small
        business issuer");
  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 small business issuer
        as
        of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
  4.
        I am
        responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
        (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small
        business issuer and have:
  (a)
        Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
        controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that
        material information relating to the small business issuer, 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;
  (b)
        [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained
        in
        SEC Release 34-47986]; and
  5.
        I have
        disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
        reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee
        of
        the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
        equivalent functions):
 
 (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 small
        business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over
        financial


Date:  September
      25,
      2007




By:
            /s/ James
              H. HirstJames
              H. HirstChief
              Executive Officer,
              President, Directorand
              Principal Accounting
              Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

March 22, 2017

d0315 

# Order

Clerk March 22, 2017

154505

KIM METHNER and CONNIE METHNER,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v SC: 154505

COA: 326781

Midland CC: 12

- 009082

- CH

VILLAGE OF SANFORD,

Defendant/Cross

- Defendant

- Appellant,

and

MID

- VALLEY AGENCY, INC.,

Defendant/Cross

- Plaintiff

- Appellee,

and

MALLEY CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the

case of Marlette Auto Wash, LLC v Van Dyke SC Properties, LLC (Docket No. 153979)

is pend ing on appeal before this Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an

issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application

be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0557

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

STEPHANIE DAWN BLANK,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable John W. Larson, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 12 2024

06/12/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0557
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE 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 on Form 10-Q of Omeros Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31,
2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or incorporated by
reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except as may be expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.



Dated: May 10, 2011/s/ Gregory A. DemopulosGregory A. Demopulos, M.D.Principal Executive Officer
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 09, 2015.

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.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, February 09, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0234. JORGE PARDO v. NATIONAL NOTE GROUP DE LLC 1.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

14A10652