alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 **SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 **(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**
 
 I, Chris
Dellinges, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Summit Environmental
Corporation, 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
Rule 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. [this
paragraph has been omitted]; and
 
 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 quarter (the
registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an quarterly report) 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 officers 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 functions):
 
 a. all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control 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: 
May 20, 2005
 */s/
Chris Dellinges*
 Chris
Dellinges
 Chief
Financial Officer
    -20-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001058952
<NAME> YOUNG AMERICA HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,495
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,857
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        806
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,301
<PP&E>                                          23,980
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,060
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,030
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,800
<BONDS>                                         80,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,871
<OTHER-SE>                                    (67,429)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,030
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,206
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,531
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,412
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,332)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (875)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,457)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,457)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10(l)



                          FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                 STOCK PURCHASE ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDMENT ("Amendment") is dated as of January 31, 2000 and is by
and between OTR Express, Inc. (the "Company") and Steven W. Ruben, Vice
President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company ("Ruben").
This Amendment relates to and amends that certain Stock Purchase
Assistance Agreement dated February 27, 1998 by and between the Company
and Ruben (the "Agreement").

   Section 7(c) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:

             If either (i) Ruben's employment is terminated
             by the Company without Cause or (ii) there is a
             Change of Control of the Company, then the
             Company (or such successor) shall pay, directly
             to the Bank, the balance of principal amount
             outstanding (if any) at such event on Ruben's
             Loan for the benefit of Ruben (which amount may
             be taxable to Ruben as compensation) provided
             that contemporaneously with such payment (x)
             the Bank shall execute and deliver to the
             Company (and/or such successor) a termination
             of the Guaranty and a release of the Company
             (or such successor) from any and all
             obligations thereunder and (y) Ruben executes
             and delivers to the Company (and/or such
             successor) a comprehensive release of claims,
             including any employment related claims, that
             are or may be alleged by Ruben, his
             representatives and heirs against the Company
             (and/or such successor).

The remainder of the Agreement, and the Agreement as amended, shall
continue in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties have executed this Agreement
intending to be bound thereby.


                                         /s/ Steven W. Ruben
                                         Steven W.  Ruben


                                         OTR Express, Inc.


                                         By:   /s/ William P. Ward
                                         Name:  William P. Ward
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway,

 Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 23, 2009 

p0316 

Order 

 

March 23, 2009 

137266 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137266 

 COA: 285537 

Genesee CC: 84-034395-FC 

ANNE MARIE BROWN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 5, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 29, 2013

h0422 

# Order

April 29, 2013

146166

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146166

COA: 309923

Wayne CC: 08

- 007980

LEONARDO H. TOMLINSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 19, 2012

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31


         CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Kenneth C. Lowe, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
June 30, 2003 of Transition Auto Finance II ("TAF II");

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 TAF II as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report.

4. TAF II's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for TAF II 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 TAF II, 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. Evaluated the effectiveness of TAF II's disclosure control's 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 TAF II's internal control over
     financial reporting that occurred during TAF II's most recent fiscal
     quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
     affect, TAF II's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. TAF II's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to TAF II's
auditors and the audit committee of TAF II's board of directors:

     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 TAF II'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 TAF II's internal control over
     financial reporting.

Date: August 12, 2003

/s/ KENNETH LOWE
--------------------------------------
Kenneth Lowe
Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer
LAMAR TIMMONS,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-5435

Opinion filed October 14, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Glen P. Gifford, and Randall Richardson, 

Assistant Public Defenders, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, and Jay Kubica, Assistant 

Attorneys General, Tallahassee; Elizabeth Desloge, Assistant State Attorney, 

Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED as untimely. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(i).

LEWIS, C.J., WOLF, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
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 bebe stores, inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 1, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Walter Parks,
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, 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.



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                                                    
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 9, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Walter Parks                                   
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | Walter Parks                                       
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
#### Julius Fortsman v. Ruth A. Schulting.

(See Mem.)
#### VERNON CARSON, By His Next Friend, J. J. CARSON, v. HENRIETTA MILES, Incorporated, and THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY.

(Filed 17 May, 1933.)

Insurance P b—

In this action on a policy of group insurance the judgment as of non-suit is affirmed, the plaintiff having failed to offer satisfactory proof that the premiums were paid in accordance with the terms of the policy, that the policy was ever delivered, that insured had completed three months service required by the policy, or that the death of insured occurred while the policy was in force.

Appeal by plaintiff from *McElroy, J.,*at February Term, 1933, of Rutheefobd.

Affirmed.

*M. P. Spears and J. B. Burgess for appellant.*

*Byburn & Hoey for appellee.*

Adams, J.

On 3 May, 1927, the Travelers Insurance Company issued its certificate based on Group Life Policy No. G. 3670 on the life of Thomas Carson, in which the plaintiff was named as beneficiary. Under the terms of the certificate the sum of one thousand dollars was to be *668paid if the death of the insured occurred during the continuance of the policy and while the insured, an employee of the Henrietta Mills, was protected by the certificate. At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence the action was dismissed as in case of nonsuit, and the plaintiff excepted and appealed.

In our opinion the judgment should be affirmed. The plaintiff insists that his evidence makes a prima facie case for the jury; but we find no satisfactory proof that the premiums were paid in accordance with the contract, or that the policy was ever delivered, or that the insured completed three months of service as the agreement of the parties required, or that the death of the insured occurred while the policy was in force. There are other objections which would seem to bar the plaintiff’s recovery. Judgment

Affirmed.
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
Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of American Superconductor Corporation (the Company) for the year ended March 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, David A. Henry, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:



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



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/S/ DAVID A. HENRY     
|David A. Henry         
|Chief Financial Officer

June 26, 2012
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51449 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus OSCAR FRANCO-MUNOZ, also known as Cesar Franco, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-652-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Oscar FrancoMunoz raises arguments that are foreclosed by United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez , 130 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 1997), which held that a Texas felony conviction for possession of marijuana was an “aggravated felony” under § 2L1.2(b) of the Sentencing Guidelines, and by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. TheNo. 05-51449 -2- Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
### Proposed Provision: B6.3. Provide an increase in the benefit level of any beneficiary who is 85 or older at the beginning of 2025 or who reaches their 85th birthday after the beginning of 2025. Increase the beneficiary's PIA based on an amount equal to the average retired-worker PIA at the end of 2024, or at the end of the year age 80 if later. Increase the beneficiary's PIA by 5 percent of this amount for those older than 85 at the beginning of 2025 and by 5 percent of this amount at age 85 for others, phased in at 1 percent per year for ages 81-85.

back
#### STATE v. HANNAH GOLDEN.

(Filed 31 October, 1928.)

Appeal and Error — Review—Burden of Showing Error.

Where on appeal the Supreme Court is equally divided, one Justice being absent, the’ appellant having failed to show error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Appeal by defendant from *Shaw, J.,*at March Term, 1928, of Forsyth.

Affirmed.

Criminal action, in which defendant was tried upon a warrant charging her with unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor.

*247From judgment on a verdict of guilty, defendant appealed to tbe Supreme Court.

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.*

*John D. Slawter for defendant.*

Pee Oueiam.

On ber appeal *to*tbis Court, defendant relies solely upon ber exception to tbe refusal of tbe trial court to allow ber motion, at tbe close of all tbe evidence, for judgment as of nonsuit. 0. S., 4643. There was evidence tending to sbow tbe presence of intoxicating liquor in tbe bouse occupied by defendant, as charged in tbe warrant. Tbe controversy was as to whether tbe liquor was in ber possession or in tbe possession of men to whom she bad rented rooms, and who were present when tbe officers entered tbe bouse.

*Stacy, G. J.,*not present, tbe Court, after bearing'the argument, and after considering tbe question presented by tbe appeal is evenly divided, two of its members being of tbe opinion that there was no error in tbe refusal of defendant’s motion, and two of tbe contrary opinion.

Tbe defendant having failed to sustain ber assignment of error, on ber appeal to tbis Court, tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court must be affirmed. *Poe v. Durham Public Service Co.,*192 N. C., 819.

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

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.

 October 5, 2016

a0928

Order 

Clerk

October 5, 2016

152841

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152841

COA: 322179 

Genesee CC: 13-033536-FC

DEON JEFFERSON JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 22, 2015 

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

case of People v Comer (Docket No. 152713) is pending 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.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4672]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-219-000]


Columbia Gulf Transmission Co.; Notice of Informal Settlement 
Conference

February 21, 1995.
    Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened 
in this proceeding on February 28, 1995, at 10:00 a.m., at the offices 
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 810 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C., for the purpose of exploring the possible settlement 
of the above-referenced docket.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as 
defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to 
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status 
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
    For additional information, contact Edith A. Gilmore at (202) 208-
2158 or Hollis J. Alpert at (202) 208-0783.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-4672 Filed 2-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M