alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
CERTIFICATION
I, Joseph V. Green, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 30, 2004 of Winston Hotels, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theCompany and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theCompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the periodin which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 8, 2004    /s/ Joseph V. Green   Joseph V. Green Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 59800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24267]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of the Public Debt


Senior Executive Service; Public Debt Performance Review Board 
(PRB)

AGENCY: Bureau of the Public Debt, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of Members of Public Debt Performance Review Board.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the appointment of the members of the 
Public Debt Performance Review Board (PRB) for the Bureau of the Public 
Debt (BPD). The PRB reviews the performance appraisals of career senior 
executives who are below the level of Assistant Commissioner/Executive 
Director and who are not assigned to the Office of the Commissioner in 
BPD. The PRB makes recommendations regarding proposed performance 
appraisals, ratings, bonuses, pay adjustments, and other appropriate 
personnel actions.

DATES: The membership on the Public Debt PRB as described in the Notice 
is effective on September 28, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Jones, Director, Human 
Resources Division, Office of Management Services, BPD, (304) 480-8949.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), this Notice 
announces the appointment of the following primary and alternate 
members to the Public Debt PRB:
    Primary Members:
Anita Shandor, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, BPD 
Kimberly A. McCoy, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Information 
Technology, BPD.
Cynthia Z. Springer, Executive Director, Administrative Resource 
Center, BPD.
    Alternate Members:
Dara Seaman, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Financing, BPD.

Van Zeck,
Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2010-24267 Filed 9-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-39-P
#### Wm. Jones v. Mike Malloy.

(No. 3024.)

Appeal from Grayson County.

*(Transferred from, Austin.)*

J. H. Randall, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Will son, J.

*298January 14, 1891.

§ 198. *Appeal bond or affidavit not vitiated by a clerical error; case stated.*A judgment having been rendered in justice’s court in favor of appellee against appellant, the latter appealed to the county court, making an affidavit in lieu of an appeal bond, in which affidavit the judgment was described as having been rendered in cause. No. 391, when the true number of said cause was 395. Because of the misdescription of the number of the cause the appeal was dismissed upon motion of appellee. We think and hold that the court erred in dismissing the appeal. In all particulars, except the number of the cause, the judgment appealed from was fully and correctly described, and it is manifest from the whole record that the misdescription of the number of the cause was merely a clerical error. Said affidavit was filed in cause No. 395, and sent up to the county court as one of the original papers in said cause. That it referred to the judgment rendered in cause 395 cannot be doubted. A mere clerical error will not vitiate an appeal bond or affidavit. [1 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 1236.]

Reversed and remanded.’
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



I, Andrew Hamer, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Keynote Systems, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  |  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2005 (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented
therein.
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: January 30, 2006



|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ ANDREW HAMER                                                                     
|Andrew Hamer Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)



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



Created by 10KWizard Technology www.10KW
#### ULLAH, INC. v. LAFAYETTE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 2011-C-0100.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2011.

In re Lafayette Insurance Company; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 109-486; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-CA-1566.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.
#### Fred. W. Miner v. John A. Gose.

(No. 774, Op. Book No. 3, p. 423.)

Appeal from Lamar County.

Opinion by

Clark, J.

§73. *Certiorari; requisites of petition for.*An appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace being the regular method prescribed by statute for effecting a revision of errors in that tribunal, the petition for *certiorari*must allege a sufficient excuse for not appealing. [Mayo v. Lewis, 4 Tex. 1; Cotton v. Gammon, 4 Tex. 84; Bodman v. Harris, 20 Tex. 31.] That petitioner’s adversary had made a motion for new trial in justice’s court, and afterwards abandoned it, thereby deceiving petitioner, will not be a sufficient excuse for not appealing. A petition for *certiorari*should also set out the substance of the evidence adduced upon the trial before the justice, in order that the court, in granting the writ, may be enabled intelligently to determine the merit of the application. This has generally been deemed essential in our practice. *33[Clark v. Hutton, 28 Tex. 123; Givens v. Blocker, 23 Tex. 633; Robinson v. Lakey, 19 Tex. 140.]

June 9, 1880.

Reversed and remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOUND IN THE COMPANY'S 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTH
PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,906
<SECURITIES>                                    16,718
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,599
<PP&E>                                           9,171
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,562
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,001
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,406
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,577
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,001
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               187,147
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  122,520
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,290
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,722
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,568
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,568
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.67
        

</TABLE>
Dismissed and Opinion Filed December 16, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-01389-CV

CAROL ODOM AND SENIOR CARE CENTERS, L.L.C. A/K/A FAIR PARK SENIOR 

CARE CENTERS, Appellants

V.

WATT CARROLL, JR, Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-00114-E

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Stoddart

Before the Court is appellants’ December 9, 2014, unopposed motion to dismiss 

the appeal. In the motion, the parties state they have resolved all matters in dispute between them 

and request we dismiss the appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a). 

141389F.P05

/ Craig Stoddart/

CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

CAROL ODOM AND SENIOR CARE 

CENTERS, L.L.C. A/K/A FAIR PARK 

SENIOR CARE CENTERS, Appellants

No. 05-14-01389-CV V.

WATT CARROLL, JR, Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-00114-E.

Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. 

Justices Francis and Evans participating.

Based on appellants’ December 9, 2014, unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal, and in 

accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 16th day of December, 2014.
#### STELLA CHERTKOVA *v.*CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

(AC 23305)

Lavery, C. J., and West and Stoughton, Js.

Argued April 28

officially released May 20, 2003

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Adebayo O.T. FAYIGA, M.D., Appellant, v. Kyra Sophia CASSAGNOL, Rashad Ahmad Washington, and Mark E. Pollack, Appellees.

No. 3D12-587.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 18, 2012.

*1180Adebayo O.T. Fayiga, M.D., in proper person.

Kyra Sophia Cassagnol, Rashad Ahmad Washington, Pollack & Rosen, and Mark E. Pollack, in proper persons.

Before SHEPHERD and SALTER, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.315.
**EXHIBIT 99.4**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63, TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE**

** **

I, Robert L.Weisgarber, the Chief Financial Officer of DSI Toys, Inc. (the “Company”),certify that:

 

# **1.**               the Form 10-K and Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A forthe Company’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

# **2.**               the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of DSIToys, Inc.

 
|   | /s/ ROBERT L.  WEISGARBER |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   |                      |
|   | Robert L.  Weisgarber     |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer  |
|   | May 12, 2003              |

 

----
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted earnings per
share:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         1997             1996          1995
                                                           $                $              $
                                                      ------------------------------------------
<S>                                                     <C>             <C>          <C>
Numerator:
Net income (loss)                                       9,036,271       (183,799)    (1,064,806)
Dividends on Series A preferred stock                     (54,000)          --             --
Dividends on subsidiary's preferred shares               (160,415)          --             --
                                                       ----------------------------------------
Numerator for basic and diluted earnings (loss) per
share - income (loss) available to common
stockholders                                            8,821,856       (183,799)    (1,064,806)
                                                       ----------------------------------------

Denominator:
Denominator for basic earnings (loss) per share -
weighted average shares outstanding                     5,870,553      5,989,849      4,978,115
Effect of dilutive securities
Warrants                                                  139,155           --             --
                                                       ----------------------------------------

Dilutive potential common shares Denominator
for diluted earnings (loss) per share adjusted
weighted-average shares and assumed
conversions                                             6,009,708      5,989,849      4,978,115
                                                       ----------------------------------------

Basic earnings(loss) per share                               1.50          (0.03)         (0.22)
                                                       ----------------------------------------
Diluted earnings(loss) per share                             1.47          (0.03)         (0.22)
                                                       ----------------------------------------
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 91 (Tuesday, June 6, 1995)]
[Daily Digest]
[Pages D687-D688]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Committee Meetings
OVERSIGHT
Committee on Commerce: Subcommittee on Energy and Power held an 
oversight hearing on the Future of Alternative Fuels. Testimony was 
heard from William White, Deputy Secretary, Department of Energy; Allan 
Beres, Assistant Commissioner, Transportation and Property Management, 
GSA; Jim Anselmi, Manager, Central Automotive Division, Port Authority 
of New York and New Jersey; and public witnesses.
FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPETITIVENESS ACT
Committee on Commerce: Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance 
and the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials held a 
joint hearing on H.R. 1061, Financial Services Competitiveness Act of 
1995. Testimony was heard from Arthur Levitt, Jr., Chairman, SEC; Julie 
Williams, Chief Counsel, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 
Department of the Treasury; Alan Greenspan, Chairman, Board of 
Governors, Federal Reserve System; Ricki Helfer, Chairman, FDIC, 
Elizabeth Randall, Commissioner of Banking, State of New Jersey; and 
public witnesses.
  Hearings continue June 8.
CORPORATE STRUCTURE FOR GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight: Subcommittee on 
Government Management, Information, and Technology held a hearing on 
Corporate Structure for Government Functions. Testimony was heard from 
Roger W. Johnson, Administrator, GSA; the following officials of the 
Bonneville Power Administration, Department of Energy: Jack Robertson, 
Deputy Administrator; and Paul Majkut, General Counsel; Donald H. 
Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense; and public witnesses.
[[Page D688]]

OVERSIGHT--CALIFORNIA SPOTTED OWL RECOVERY PLAN
Committee on Resources: Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 
lands held an oversight hearing on California Spotted Owl Recovery Plan 
on Forest Service lands in California. Testimony was heard from 
Representatives Herger and Fazio; David G. Unger, Associate Chief, 
Forest Service, USDA; and public witnesses.
FEDERAL INCOME TAX REPLACEMENT
Committee on Ways and Means: Held a hearing on Replacing the Federal 
Income Tax. Tesimony was heard from Jennie S. Stathis, Director, Tax 
Policy and Administration Issues, GAO; and public witnesses.
  Hearings continue tomorrow.

Joint Meetings
GPO
Joint Committee on Printing: Committee concluded oversight hearings to 
review activities of the Government Printing Office, focusing on cost 
savings and new information services, after receiving testimony from 
Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer, Government Printing Office.
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 5836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2418]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6892]


Lifting of Nonproliferation Measures Against One Russian Entity

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: A determination has been made, pursuant to Section 6 of 
Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994, as amended, to remove 
nonproliferation measures on one Russian entity.

DATES: Effective Date: February 4, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela K. Durham, Office of Missile 
Threat Reduction, Bureau of International Security and 
Nonproliferation, Department of State (202-647-4930).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the authorities vested in the 
President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of 
America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (``IEEPA''), the National Emergencies Act (50 
U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et 
seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and Section 6 of 
Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994, as amended, a determination 
was made on January 26, 2010, that it is in the foreign policy and 
national security interests of the United States to remove the 
restrictions imposed pursuant to Sections 4(b), 4(c), and 4(d) of the 
Executive Order on the following Russian entity, its sub-units and 
successors:
    1. Baltic State Technical University.
    These restrictions were imposed on July 30, 1998 (see 63 FR 42089).

    Dated: January 29, 2010.
C.S. Eliot Kang,
Acting Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and 
Nonproliferation.
[FR Doc. 2010-2418 Filed 2-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-27-P