alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Manuel J. Becerra, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Union Security Life Insurance Company of New York; 

2. Based on myknowledge, 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 respectto the period covered by this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) 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 ensurethat 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 report is being prepared; 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, 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 theeffectiveness 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 anannual 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 officer(s) 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 the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor 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 controlover financial reporting. 

Date: August 4, 2008
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of YaFarm Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zhiguang Zhang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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








Dated:           November 12, 2010
/s/ Zhiguang ZhangBy:  Zhiguang ZhangIts:  Chief Executive Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to YaFarm Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by YaFarm Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3963

To amend section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 to prohibit

the owner of a rental dwelling unit from receiving Federal rental subsidy

amounts for rental of the dwelling unit to a member of the owner’s

family.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 2, 1996

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To amend section 8 of the United States Housing Act of

1937 to prohibit the owner of a rental dwelling unit

from receiving Federal rental subsidy amounts for rental

of the dwelling unit to a member of the owner’s family.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Housing Fraud Pre5 vention Act’’.
2

•HR 3963 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF RENTAL SUBSIDIES FOR UNIT

2 RENTED TO MEMBER OF OWNER’S FAMILY.

3 Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937

4 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) is amended by inserting after sub5 section (k) the following new subsection:

6 ‘‘(l)(1) In the case of tenant-based assistance pro7 vided under this section on behalf of an eligible family,

8 the eligible family may not use such assistance for the

9 rental of any dwelling unit for which the owner is a family

10 member of the eligible family.

11 ‘‘(2) For purposes of this subsection, the following

12 definitions shall apply:

13 ‘‘(A) The term ‘family member’ means, with re14 spect to an eligible family, a child, parent, or grand15 parent of the head of household of the eligible family

16 or the head of household’s spouse. In determining

17 whether any of the relationships referred to in this

18 subparagraph exist, a legally adopted son or daugh19 ter of an individual (and a child who is a member

20 of an individual’s household, if placed with such in21 dividual by an authorized placement agency for legal

22 adoption by such individual), and a foster child of an

23 individual, shall be treated as a child of such individ24 ual by blood.
3

•HR 3963 IH

1 ‘‘(B) The term ‘child’ means, with respect to

2 any individual, a son, stepson, daughter, or step3 daughter of such individual.’’.

4 SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY.

5 The amendment under by section 2 is made on the

6 date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to the

7 rental of any dwelling unit pursuant to a lease entered

8 into after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 419 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.419

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

                                 An Act

 
              For the relief of Benchmark Rail Group, Inc.

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

SECTION 1. FINDING AND PURPOSE.

    (a) Finding.--The Congress finds that Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., 
of St. Louis, Missouri, satisfactorily performed emergency work after 
the Northridge earthquake, but has not been reimbursed as a result of a 
technicality under California State law.
    (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to fairly compensate 
Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., for the work for which, except for the 
technicality under California State law, it would otherwise have been 
paid under the provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121).

SEC. 2. PAYMENT.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
shall pay to Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., of St. Louis, Missouri, an 
amount equal to the total amount owed to Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., by 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the State of California to 
compensate Benchmark Rail Group, Inc., for the emergency work and 
services performed at the request of the Southern California Regional 
Rail Authority, to the extent that such work and services are otherwise 
eligible for reimbursement under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster and 
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121). The payment shall be made 
from funds appropriated to implement such Act.
    (b) Deobligation of Funds.--The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
shall deobligate an equal amount to that obligated previously for 
payment to the State of California to cover the costs of work performed 
for the Southern California Regional Rail Authority by Benchmark Rail 
Group, Inc., after the Northridge earthquake which would have been 
eligible for reimbursement under such Act.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00124

- CR

Cesar ZUNIGA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 13, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 548303

Honorable Crystal D. Chandler, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED September 5, 2018.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Civil No. 09-12222

Honorable Robert H. Cleland

Plaintiff, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

vs.

ONE (1) 2000 INTERNATIONAL TRUCK, 

VIN 2HSCHAMR5YC076636; AND 

ONE (1) 2004 FORD TRAILER, 

VIN 2DEADDZ2741015981

Defendants in Rem.

____________________________________/

ORDER FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT AND 

FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE AS TO ONE (1) 2000 INTERNATIONAL TRUCK

VIN 2HSCHAMR5YC076636

Upon the accompanying Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment and Final Order of

Forfeiture as to One (1) 2000 International Truck VIN 2HSCHAMR5YC076636, executed by

the parties, the terms of which are incorporated by reference herein, and the Court being

otherwise fully advised in the premises:

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of 2

Dated: May 14, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this

date, May 14, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522
#### BOATMEN’S CREDIT CARD BANK, d/b/a Mastercard and Visa, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. William O. SCHWEITZER, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 69493.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 27, 1996.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 29, 1996.

William 0. Schweitzer, St. Louis, pro se, defendani/appellant.

William F. Whealen, Jr., Miller & Steeno, P.C., Clayton, for plaintiff/respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment for plaintiff for $9,433.19. We affirm. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BULLSEYE TELECOM, INC.,

a Michigan corporation,

Plaintiff,

 Case No. 09-13046

v. Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,

a California corporation,

Defendant.

______________________________/

JUDGMENT

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to this Court’s opinion and order

dated May 6, 2010, Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Dated at Port Huron, Michigan, this 6th day of May, 2010.

DAVID J. WEAVER

CLERK OF THE COURT

BY: S/Marie E.Verlinde 

Marie E. Verlinde

Case Manager

APPROVED:

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated March 19, 2008, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on March 28, 2008, (73 FR 16711), Penick Corporation, 33 Industrial Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II: Drug
ScheduleCocaine (9041)
IICodeine (9050)
IIDihydrocodeine (9120)
IIOxycodone (9143)
IIHydromorphone (9150)
IIDiphenoxylate (9170)
IIEcgonine (9180)
IIHydrocodone (9193)
IIMorphine (9300)
IIThebaine (9333)
IIOxymorphone (9652)
II
 The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances as bulk controlled substance intermediates for distribution to its customers for further manufacture or to manufacture pharmaceutical dosage forms. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Penick Corporation to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Penick Corporation to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: July 29, 2008. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E8-17964 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Exhibit 23 (b)

                         Consent of Arthur Andersen LLP


        The Board of Directors
        Southern Financial Bancorp, Inc.

        As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
        report dated February 4, 1997, included in Southern Financial Bancorp,
        Inc.'s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998, and to all
        references to our Firm included in this Form 10-K. It should be noted
        that we have not audited any financial statements of Southern Financial
        Bancorp, Inc. subsequent to December 31, 1996, or performed any audit
        procedures subsequent to the date of our report.




        Arthur Andersen LLP
        Washington, D. C.
        March 30, 1999








                    Report of Independent Public Accountants


        To the Board of Directors of
        Southern Financial Bancorp, Inc.

        We have audited the consolidated statements of income, changes in
        stockholders'equity and cash flows of Southern Financial Bancorp, Inc.
        (a Virginia corporation) for the year ended December 31, 1996. These
        financial statements are the responsibility of the Bancorp's management.
        Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
        statements based on our audits.

        We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
        standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to
        obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
        free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test
        basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
        statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles
        used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating
        the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits
        provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

        In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present
        fairly, in all material respects, the results of operations and cash
        flows of Southern Financial Bancorp, Inc for the year ended December 31,
        1996 in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.


        Arthur Andersen LLP
        Washington, D. C.
        February 4, 1997
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

________________________ No. ACM S32676

________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Xhyjhaet T. MARSHALL Airman First Class (E

- 3 ), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________ Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 13 December 2021

________________________ Military Judge: Brett A. Landry

. S entence: Sentence adjudged on 10 November 2020 by SpCM convened at Nellis A ir Force Base, Nevada . Sentence entered by military judge on 11 December 2 020 : Bad

- cond uct discharge, confinement for 12 months , reduction to E

- 1, and a reprimand

. For Appellant: Captain Ryan S. Crnkovich, USAF

. For Appellee : Lieut enant Colonel Matthew J. Neil, US AF ; Major John P. Patera, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire

. Before LEWIS, ANNEXSTAD , and OWEN , Appellate Military Judges.

________________________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and P rocedure 30.4.

________________________ PER CURIAM: The findings and sentence as entered are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(d) , Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C . §§ 859(a), 866( d ).United States v. Marshall , No. ACM S32676

2 Manual for Courts

- Martial , United States (2019 ed.). Accordingly, the findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32(a)

                      18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that the accompanying Form 10-K of Southwest Bancorp, Inc. ("Southwest")
for the annual period ended December 31, 2005, fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and that the information contained in this Form 10-K
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Southwest.

By: /s/ Rick Green                                       March 10, 2006
    --------------------------------------               -----------------------
Rick Green                                               Date
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RAE ANDERSON BULLARD and

ROCKWOOD W. BULLARD III,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 09-CV-12839 

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

INDYMAC BANK FSB, et al.,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DEEMING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND TO DISMISS AS WITHDRAWN (# 18),

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment and to dismiss on October 2,

2009, seeking to invalidate a mortgage because plaintiff Rockwood Bullard, as plaintiff Rae

Bullard's husband, did not sign the subject mortgage. The court has entered three prior

Stipulated Orders extending the briefing schedules for the filing of response and reply

briefs. See Stipulated Orders filed on October 21, 2009, November 13, 2009, and

November 30, 2009. A hearing on the motion is currently scheduled for March 18, 2010.

The parties have now submitted a fourth proposed Stipulated Order advising the

court that Rockwood Bullard's deposition was continued on January 12, 2010, and that the

parties contemplate filing discovery motions for a protective order and motion to compel.

The parties continue that the plaintiffs' "depositions need to be concluded prior to further

briefing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment," and that "the parties are not certain

when the depositions will be held and, therefore seek[] to adjourn the briefing schedule and

2:09-cv-12839-GCS-DAS Doc # 29 Filed 01/20/10 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1013
2

hearing date to dates to be determined at a future time[.]"

The parties agree that further discovery is needed before plaintiffs' pending motion

for summary judgment can be heard, and have agreed to conduct this discovery. The

schedule for this discovery remains unknown. Supplemental briefing on the current motion

for summary judgment would be required after discovery is fully developed. The court's

September 10, 2009 Scheduling Order provides for a discovery cut-off of June 1, 2010, and

a dispositive motion cut-off of July 1, 2010. Consistent with the parties' agreements and

the September 10, 2009 Scheduling Order,

Plaintiffs' October 2, 2009 motion for partial summary judgment and to dismiss is

hereby deemed WITHDRAWN, without prejudice, and accordingly, the current March 18,

2010, hearing date is hereby ADJOURNED without date. By subsequent notice to the

court, plaintiffs may reopen the motion, consistent with the contemplated discovery, the

parties' instant proposed Stipulated Order and briefing schedule, and the court's September

10, 2009 Scheduling Order. 

 SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2010

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

January 20, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-12839-GCS-DAS Doc # 29 Filed 01/20/10 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1014
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We have  issued  our  report  dated   March 17, 2000  accompanying the
consolidated financial statements of Correctional Services Corporation
and Subsidiaries that are included in  the Company's Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 1999.  We hereby  consent to the incorporation
by  reference  of   said  report  in  the  Registration  Statement  of
Correctional  Services  Corporation  and  Subsidiaries  on   Form S-8,
Registration No. 333-76353,  effective  April 15, 1999, and Form S-8,
Registration No. 333-16537 effective November 21, 1996.

					/s/	GRANT THORNTON LLP


Tampa, Florida
March 17, 2000