alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 12.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Anders Igel, certifythat:

1.    Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of TeliaSonera AB;

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 financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

4.   The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

(a)             Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designated under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(b)            Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)             Disclosedin this report any change in the company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.   The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’sauditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)    All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting.
| June 27, 2006 |   |   |   |                                  |
|--------------------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|               |   | By:    |   | /s/ ANDERS IGEL                       |
|               |   | Name:  |   | Anders Igel                           |
|               |   | Title: |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

----
CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Form Form 10-K of Belrose Capital Fund LLC;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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
    /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.Thomas E. Faust Jr.Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 23.2**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

To the Board of Directors 

Heritage Bankshares, Inc. 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inregistration statement No. 333-112214 on Form S-8 of Heritage Bankshares, Inc. of our report dated March 24, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Heritage Bankshares, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in this annual report on Form 10-K. 

 

Galax, Virginia 

March 24, 2009 

 

76
815 A.2d 955

#### IN THE MATTER OF ROGER C. PETERMAN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

February 20, 2003.

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented to the Court, it is ORDERED that ROGER C. PETERMAN of HAWORTH, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1992, and who was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months effective December 5, 2001, by Order of this Court filed September 19, 2002, be restored to the practice of law, effective immediately; and it is further

*441ORDERED that respondent shall submit to random drug testing arranged by the Office of Attorney Ethics as ordered on September 19, 2002, for a period of one year effective December 5, 2002, and until the further Order of the Court.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Front Porch Digital
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Michael
Knaisch, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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

Date:    August 16, 2004                             By: /s/ Michael Knaisch
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Michael Knaisch
                                                         Chief Executive Officer

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

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 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 ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,030
<SECURITIES>                                     7,140
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,259
<ALLOWANCES>                                       197
<INVENTORY>                                      1,450
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,681
<PP&E>                                          17,305
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,178
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,909
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,678
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           124
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,769
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,909
<SALES>                                         24,864
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,223
<CGS>                                            8,238
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,302
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,078
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,902
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,176
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,176
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .67


</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50404

MARCUS TYLER SHEFFIELD , Petitioner

- Appellant

v. LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION , Respondent

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:18

- CV

- 385

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Marcus Tyler Sheffield, Texas prisoner # 2034529, was convicted in 2015 by a jury of two counts of sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to 10 years of impr isonment on both counts to run concurrently. He now moves for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application. Sheffield argues that his statement to police during an interview was obtained i n violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). He also

* 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 April 9, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50404 Document: 00515378203 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2020No. 19

- 50404

2 argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and to call Dr. William Rogers as a witness about his treatment of Sheffield for a disorder that affected Sheffield’s mental and physical development. A COA may be issued “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court rejects constitutional claims on their merit s, a COA should issue only if the petitioner “demonstrate[es] that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); see Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 483

- 84 (2000). Sheffield has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, his request for a COA is DENIED. His motion to proceed in forma pauperi s on appeal is also DENIED. To the extent Sheffield argues that the district court erred in denying him appointed counsel, an order denying a motion for appointment of counsel in a habeas proceeding is not a “final order” that disposes of the merits of a habeas corpus proceeding for purposes of § 2253(c), and therefore is not subject to the COA requirement. Harbison v. Bell , 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009)

. Because Sheffield has not shown that the district court erred in denying his request for appointment of counsel, we AFFIRM in part. See Pennsylvania v. Finley , 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987) ; Schwander v. Blackburn , 750 F.2d 494, 502 (5th Cir. 1985). Case: 19-50404 Document: 00515378203 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2020
#### HODGMAN RUBBER CO. v. DUMAINE et al. In re AMOSKEAG MFG. CO.

No. 3279.

Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Dec. 8, 1937.

Wallace M. Cohen, of Boston, Mass. (Fox & Orlov, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellant.

David R. Pokross, of Boston, Mass. (Howard W. Brown, Charles M. Storey, and Peabody, Brown, Rowley & Storey, all of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellees.

Before BINGHAM, WILSON, and MORTON, Circuit Judges.

BINGHAM, Circuit Judge.

The facts and the contracts in this case are the same as the facts and contracts set out in Golding Brothers Co., Inc., et al. v. Dumaine et al., Trustees, 1 Cir., 93 F.2d 162, this day decided, with the exception that in this case the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company, the seller, paid the United States the processing tax and, although a claim has been filed for a refund, it has received nothing back from the United States.

In so far as the rights of the parties depend upon the construction of the contracts, they are concluded by our decision in the case above referred to, which bars recovery.

Furthermore, inasmuch as the Amoskeag Company, the seller, has paid the tax to the United States and received nothing back, if it could be inferred from the contracts that the promise of the buyer was ,to pay the seller a stated price for the goods and also pay him an additional sum to pay the tax, the appellant could not, even then, maintain its claim for the amount of the tax, first, for the reason that the Amoskeag Company would have complied with its contract by paying the government the tax, and, second, because it could not be said to have unjustly enriched itself at the appellant’s expense, for it paid the tax and has not been reimbursed through a refund of it.

The order or decree of the District Court is affirmed, with costs to the appellees.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02708-WYD-KLM

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY D. BERRYMAN,

THE TEMPLE OF THE UNVEILED GOD, and

THE OFFICE OF THE OVERSEER OF DEDICATION TO ENLIGHTENMENT, and her

successors, a corporation sole,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Leave to Permit Nancy Dell

Berryman, Pro Se, Representing All Defendants to Appear Telephonically at February

15, 2012 Scheduling Conference [Docket No. 32; Filed February 9, 2012] (the “Motion”).

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendant Berryman may only represent herself

in this proceeding, and may not represent the two entity Defendants. It is a “long-standing

rule that [an entity] must be represented by an attorney to appear in federal court,” Tal v.

Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1254 (10th Cir. 2006) (footnote and citations omitted), and an entity

cannot appear through a non-attorney business officer appearing pro se. Harrison v.

Wahatoyas, LLC, 253 F.3d 552, 556 (10th Cir. 2001). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant

Berryman, representing herself only, may appear by telephone at the Scheduling

Conference set for February 15, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. Defendant Berryman and counsel for

Plaintiff must first conference together and then call Chambers on a single line at (303)

335-2770 at the designated time.

Dated: February 10, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02708-WYD-KLM Document 35 Filed 02/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### HOUGH v. DAFFNER.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
Exhibit 32

Chief Executive and Financial Officer  Certification  Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C., SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350 (as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002),  I, the  undersigned  Chief  Executive  and Chief
Financial Officer of Mortgage  Assistance Center  Corporation,  (the "Company"),
during the period covered by this report, hereby certify that, to the best of my
knowledge,  the  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB of the Company for the period
ended June 30, 2006 (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934  and  that
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the  financial  condition  and results of  operation  of the  Company.  A signed
original of this written statement  required by Section 906 has been provided to
the  registrant  and will be retained by it and furnished to the  Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


August 11, 2006                          MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE
                                         CENTER CORPORATION


                                          /s/ Dale Hensel
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         By: Dale Hensel
                                         Title: President, CEO, CFO
                                                (Principal Executive Officer and
                                                Principal Financial Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02444-WYD-KMT FTR - Courtroom C-201

Date: December 4, 2012 Deputy Clerk, Nick Richards

AMERICAN WEB, INC.,

Plaintiff,

Gregory C. Smith

Scott T. Rodgers

Kieran Anthony Lasater

v.

FLOM CORPORATION, a Maryland corporation,

LLOYD S. STIRMER, an individual,

PETER O. ABELES, an individual, and

JOHN DOE TRUSTEE(S) OF THE STIRMER

TRUST,

Defendants.

Heather Carson Perkins

Jeffrey S. Roberts

COURTROOM MINUTES / MINUTE ORDER

MOTION HEARING

Court in session: 1:27 p.m. 

Court calls case. Appearances of counsel.

Motion Hearing is called regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery [Doc. No. 80,

filed October 15, 2012].

Oral argument from Plaintiff’s counsel.

Oral argument from Defendants counsel.

It is ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery [80] is GRANTED IN PART

AND DENIED IN PART. 

The motion is GRANTED as to Second Set, Request for Production

of Documents No. 6. All invoices previously produced by Defendant

Flom Corporation must be produced in unredacted form.

The motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s Third Set, Request for

Production of Documents Nos. 1 and 2. Defendants shall produce

the information as described in Request for Production Nos. 1 and

2 in Microsoft Excel or some other non-proprietary database used

Case 1:11-cv-02444-WYD-KMT Document 89 Filed 12/04/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

by Defendants. The customers will not be identified by name but

will be identified in some manner, such as contract number, so the

clients can be distinguished. Plaintiff American Web, Inc. WILL be

included on the database. 

Should any issues arise, the parties shall confer on how the data

will be exchanged.

The motion is DENIED as to Flom Corporation Interrogatory Nos.

13, 14, and 15, Flom Corporation Request for Production of

Documents Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, and Stirmer Interrogatory

Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 and Request for Production of Documents

Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 as stated on the record. 

Court in Recess: 3:22 p.m. 

Hearing concluded.

Total In-Court Time 01:55

*To obtain a transcript of this proceeding, please contact Avery Woods Reporting at (303) 825-6119.

Case 1:11-cv-02444-WYD-KMT Document 89 Filed 12/04/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### Herman LAWSON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
#### The BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION for the COUNTY OF SUMTER, State of Florida, for and on Behalf of SPECIAL TAX SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 7, Appellant, v. Ed C. WRIGHT, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc.

Jan. 7, 1955.

Carroll W. Fussell, Bushnell, and Askew & Earle, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Joseph C. Young, Robert J. Pleus and Pleus, Edwards & Rush, Orlando, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part on authority of *868Board of Public Instruction for the County of Sumter, for and on Behalf of Special Tax School District No. 12 v. Wright, Fla., 76 So.2d 863.

ROBERTS, C. J., and SEBRING, HOB-SON and DREW, JJ., concur.

TERRELL, THOMAS and MATHEWS, JJ., dissent.
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 North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, A. P. Kimble,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial and Accounting 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:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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 10, 2007



/S/    A. P. KIMBLEA. P. KimbleSenior Vice President andChief Financial and Accounting Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to North
Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. and will be retained by North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00409-WYD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. WILLIAM G. BALLANTINE,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon a review of the file. To ensure that all

pre-trial phases of the case are complete before the commencement of the jury trial, it is

ORDERED that all pretrial motions shall be filed by Tuesday, November 1,

2011, and responses to these motions shall be filed by Monday, November 14, 2011.

It is

FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing on all pending motions, if necessary, and

final trial preparation conference will be set at a future date upon the request of counsel. 

It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that a 5-day jury trial is set for Monday, December 12,

2011, at 9:00 a.m. in courtroom A-1002.

Case 1:11-cr-00409-WYD Document 5 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
-2-

Dated: October 12, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

WILEY Y. DANIEL

CHIEF U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cr-00409-WYD Document 5 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2