alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

Certification

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Serologicals
Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 29, 2002 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

|                         |  |                                                                               
|------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 11, 2002 |  |                                                                               
|                        
|                         |  | /s/ Harold W. IngallsHarold W. Ingalls
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

30
#### Meyer et al. *v.*Brinsky et al.

(No. 25069

Decided May 1, 1935.)

*373*Mr. E. A. Binyon*and *Messrs. Tuttle & Hubbard,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Oiblin & Qiblin,*for defendant in error Louis Brinsky.

*Messrs. McKeehan, Merrick, Arter S Stewart, Messrs. Alvord, Blakely & Ostrander*and *Mr. Mc-Allister Marshall,*for defendant in error The Fro-Joy Baker-Tabor Ice Cream Company.

Weygandt, C. J.

The single question here presented is whether a Court of Common Pleas is empowered to establish a rule requiring the employment of local co-counsel by counsel actually of record but not maintaining an office in that county.

It is of course fundamental that courts are vested with inherent power to establish rules for regulating their proceedings and for facilitating the administra*374tion of justice. 7 Buling Case Law, 1023. 11 Ohio Jurisprudence, 756. This power exists independently of statute, and its exercise is especially to be commended at this time when the constantly increasing volume of litigation necessitates maximum efficiency in expediting court work lest justice be delayed and thereby virtually denied. However, it is equally fundamental that such rules must not contravene either the organic law or a valid statute; and likewise they must b.e reasonable in their operation.

Counsel for the plaintiff are in default of briefs, and did not appear for oral argument at either of the hearings in this court. Possibly the reason their views have not been presented is that they, too, have come to consider the decision in the case of *State, ex rel. Wilhe,*v. *Newton, Judge,*125 Ohio St., 640, 186 N. E., 94, as dispositive of the instant question. Under a similar rule the trial court in that controversy refused to enter a default judgment unless the plaintiff were represented by local co-counsel. This court allowed a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring the trial court to permit nonresident counsel for the plaintiff to appear and prosecute the action without such co-counsel.

The principle involved in both cases is that when this court has duly admitted a person to practice as an attorney and counsellor at law, the privilege thereby conferred is not restricted to one county but is statewide and cannot be abridged by a local court rule. Furthermore, a rule of court should apply uniformly to all attorneys appearing in that court irrespective of their place of residence in the state.

It is apparent that the judgments of the lower courts must be reversed and the cause remanded except as to the defendant, The Fro-Joy Baker-Tabor Ice Cream Company. The defendants, Meyer and Silekovitz, *375agree that the trial court was correct in entering judgment for the company.

*Judgment affirmed as to The Fro-Joy Baker-Tabor Ice Cream Company and reversed as to the other parties.*

Stephenson", Williams, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Jones, J., not participating.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION





Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and
(b) of Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)




Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Asia Global Holdings Corp., a Nevada corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the
"Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Asia Global Holdings Corp. and will be retained by Asia Global Holdings Corp.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.





Date:
      April 14, 2008
              
              /s/ John A. LeperJohn
      A. Leper, Chief Executive
Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997             JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-31-1996             JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997             OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                       2,750,100               2,165,611
<RECEIVABLES>                                  233,576               1,489,012
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                         13,802,668              13,615,510
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,786,344              17,270,133
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                     215,064                 295,481
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                    16,571,280              16,974,652
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,786,344              17,270,133
<TRADING-REVENUE>                            (490,321)                 481,653
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                           237,329                 496,352
<COMMISSIONS>                                (154,180)               (173,233)
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                                  95,215                   6,825
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (311,956)                 811,597
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (311,956)                 811,597
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
Articles of Merger
                                       of
                            Ronden Acquisition, Inc.
                                  with and into
                           Ronden Vending Corporation

         Ronden  Acquisition,  Inc., a Florida  corporation,  and Ronden Vending
         Corp.,   a   Florida   corporation   (collectively   the   "Constituent
         Corporations"),  acting in compliance with the provisions ofss.607.1104
         of the Florida Statutes, hereby certify as follows:

         1.       A plan of merger has been  approved by the board of  directors
                  of  each  of  the  Constituent  Corporations.  A  copy  of the
                  Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated December 20, 1996, setting
                  forth the terms of the merger, is attached hereto as Exhibit A
                  and made a part hereof.

         2.       The effective date of the merger shall the date these Articles
                  of Merger are filed with the Florida Secretary of State.

         3.       The merger was adopted and  approved by the board of directors
                  of each of the Constituent Corporations on December 30, 1996.

Effective: December 30, 1996.


                                      Ronden Vending Corp.



                                      By: /s/ G. David George
                                          ------------------
                                              G. David George
                                              Chief Executive  Officer


                                      Ronden Acquisition, Inc.


                                      By: /s/ G. David George
                                          ------------------
                                              G. David George, President
#### Janice NOLAN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Johnnie Seibert NOLAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 34499.

Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District.

Nov. 7, 1972.

William B. Spaun, Hannibal, for defendant-appellant.

Schaper & Woods, Mcllroy & Millan, Bowling Green, for plaintiff-respondent.

*48DOWD, Chief Judge.

This action involved a petition for separate maintenance by the plaintiff and a cross-bill for divorce by the defendant. The trial court granted plaintiff a decree for separate maintenance, and denied defendant’s cross-bill for divorce. The court ordered defendant to pay $125.00 per month alimony, $50.00 per month for each of three children, $200.00 for attorney fees, and $100.00 per month toward the repayment of back debts. Defendant appeals contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a decree of separate maintenance and that the court erred in ordering defendant to pay to plaintiff $100.00 per month for repayment of back debts.

The record reflects many irreconcilable conflicts in the testimony which require our giving great deference to> the findings of the trial judge, who had the parties and witnesses before him and was, therefore, in a much better position to judge their credibility than is this court. We must conclude from our review of the testimony that the trial court’s award of separate maintenance to the plaintiff was not clearly erroneous. Civil Rule 73.01(d), RSMo 1969, V.A.M.R.

However, a review of the record does not indicate a valid basis for the award to plaintiff of $100.00 per month for back debts. We reach this conclusion without deciding whether our statute1 permits such an award over and above an award of alimony. Such a decision, on the merits, is unnecessary under the record before us. Here, plaintiff’s own testimony clearly shows that the bulk of the loans which they owed were in the defendant’s name only, or co-signed by both parties. Therefore, since it is the defendant who is responsible for repaying these debts, the record indicates no ascertainable logic, whether by law or by reason in requiring defendant to pay an extra sum to his wife for his own debts.

Accordingly, that part of the judgment awarding to plaintiff a decree of separate maintenance, alimony, child support and attorney fees is affirmed, that part of the judgment ordering the defendant to pay $100.00 per month for the repayment of back debts is reversed.

It is so ordered.

WEIER and CLEMENS, JJ., concur.

1

. Section 452.130, RSMo 1969, Y.A.M.S.
#### Kaufman *v.*Collister, County Treas., et al.

(No. 25631

Decided November 20, 1935.)

*Messrs. Farquharson, Curtiss, Gillie & Miller,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Frank T. Cullitan,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Gerald W. Miller,*for defendant in error Collister, Treasurer of the County of Cuyahoga.

*Mr. Ezra Z. Shapiro,*director of law, and *Mr. Alfred Clum,*for defendant in error the City of Cleveland.

*Mr. E. J. Kovanda,*for defendant in error Anna Kovanda.

*Mr. H. M. Merrihew,*for defendant in error The Society for Savings.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the' reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(a)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Bakers Footwear Group, Inc. (the
Registrant);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 the Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: April 24, 2009
    
    /s/ Charles R. Daniel, IIICharles R. Daniel, IIIExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Controller,Treasurer and Secretary Bakers Footwear Group, Inc.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1941 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1941

 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and 
    feasibility of designating the Wolf House, located in Norfolk, 
    Arkansas, as a unit of the National Park System, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 2, 2007

Mrs. Lincoln (for herself and Mr. Pryor) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and 
    feasibility of designating the Wolf House, located in Norfolk, 
    Arkansas, as a unit of the National Park System, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Wolf House Study Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. FINDING.

    Congress finds that the Wolf House, located in Norfolk, Arkansas, 
is the oldest 2-story log structure and the oldest territorial 
courthouse west of the Mississippi River.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National 
        Park Service.
            (2) Wolf house.--The term ``Wolf House'' means the 
        structure known by that name located on Highway 5 in Norfolk, 
        Arkansas.

SEC. 4. WOLF HOUSE STUDY.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary, in consultation with the State of 
Arkansas, shall--
            (1) carry out a study on the suitability and feasibility of 
        designating the Wolf House as a unit of the National Park 
        System; and
            (2) consider management alternatives for the Wolf House.
    (b) Applicable Law.--Except as provided by subsection (c), section 
8(c) of Public Law 91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)) shall apply to the 
conduct and completion of the study required by subsection (a).
    (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Natural 
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources of the Senate a report describing the results of 
the study.
                                 <all>
```
| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: November 8, 2010                                  |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                    |   |
|                                                    |   |
| /s/ Charles E. Leibold                                  |   |
| Charles E. Leibold                                      |   |
| Chief Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting Officer |   |
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8049-8050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2430]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a 
Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of SGS North America, 
Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, SGS North America, Inc., 99 Castle Coakley, Christiansted, 
St. Croix, VI 00820, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test 
petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils 
for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 
151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to 
conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and 
receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or 
approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the 
specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries 
regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited 
or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#026160722c6e63606a7342666a712c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d4b7b6a4fab8b5b6bca594b0bca7fab3bba2">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the website listed below for a 
complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. 
http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_svcs/commercial_gaugers/.

DATES: The accreditation and approval of SGS North America, Inc., as 
commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on July 19, 2007. The 
next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for July 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commercial Gauger Laboratory Program 
Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 
20229, 202-344-1060.


[[Page 8050]]


    Dated: January 31, 2008.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. E8-2430 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>