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

Certifications

I, Edward Escudero, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Petro Stopping Centers, L.P.;

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)) 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 report is being prepared;

(b) 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

(c) 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 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 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 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 control over financial reporting.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: May 15, 2007                   
|                                     
|/s/ Edward Escudero                  
|(Edward Escudero)                    
|Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 20, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 20, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18I0208. THE CITY OF SAVANNAH v. BARBARA BATTISTA.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

STCV1700996
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Annual Report of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
E. Mead, Chief Executive 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)  Except for failure to comply with all requirements of
            Regulation S-X due to the disclaimer of an opinion by the
            Company's auditors on the Company's consolidated financial
            statements, 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 result of operations
            of the Company.



Dated:  November 19, 2002                        /s/ ROBERT E. MEAD
                                               --------------------
                                                     Robert E. Mead
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
 THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE HAGLER
 BAILLY, INC. AUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
  ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
                              FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         16,165
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  62,980
<ALLOWANCES>                                   3,888
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               78,563
<PP&E>                                         20,289
<DEPRECIATION>                                 13,826
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,422
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          24,269
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       165
<OTHER-SE>                                     73,434
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,422
<SALES>                                        177,462
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               177,462
<CGS>                                          126,204
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  163,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             410
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                14,438
<INCOME-TAX>                                   7,275
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            7,163
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   6,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.40
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
  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.
  By:
    
    /s/ Chitung Liu

Name: Chitung LiuTitle: Chief Financial Officer
 *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### G. Eggleston v. G., C. & F. S. R’y Co. et al.

(No. 3238.)

Appeal from Tarrant County.

W. R. McLatjry, counsel fob appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellees.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 290. *Damages held to he inadequate; case stated.*This was a suit brought by appellant against appellees in the justice court of precinct No. 1 of Tarrant county, for alleged damage to plaintiff by reason of defendants’ negligence as common carriers, whereby certain horses, the property of plaintiff, were injured while being carried by said railroad companies from Kansas City, Mo., to Ft. Worth, Tex. The amount of the alleged damage was $187. In the justice court appellant recovered a judgment for $187. Appellees appealed to the county court, where appellant recovered a judgment for $2.12j. Appellant moved for a new trial, which was overruled, *502and he now prosecutes his appeal to this court. *We*are of opinion that the judgment is against the evidence as adduced on the trial. Plaintiff proved positively by four witnesses that his horses were damaged, and by one or more witnesses that some of the injuries were of a permanent character; the damages being assessed at from $10 to $75 each on six horses. The evidence on behalf of the defense that the horses were not injured was merely the testimony of the witness Polk, and his testimony was of a very inconclusive character. This witness testified, on direct examination: “I was present when plaintiff unloaded the horses. They were unloaded in our pens. I did not notice that any of them were much bruised or hurt. They were in about such condition as horses generally are after being shipped such a longdistance.” On cross-examination he said: *“*I cannot describe the appearance of any of plaintiff’s horses at the time they were being unloaded from the cars into our pens, nor afterwards. I did not look them over nor examine them as* to their injuries. I only saw them casually as they were unloaded. I did not notice that some of them were rubbed. I cannot in fact say whether any of them were injured in shipping or not.” We are clearly of opinion that the judgment is against the evidence and the preponderance of the evidence; wherefore it is reversed and the cause remanded.

January 23, 1892.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-K/A of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc.;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:  June 15, 2009
    /s/ ROBERT E. MEADRobert E. MeadChairman, Chief Executive Officer
and President
**Exhibit 12.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
     I, Daniel Demmer, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of IONA Technologies PLC;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;     By: /s/ Daniel Demmer       **Daniel Demmer**   ***Chief Financial Officer***  
Date: April 1, 2005
#### James A. McKee et al. v. Price & Lucas.

(No. 2352.)

Appeal from Kaufman County.

*(Opinion delivered at Galveston.)*

Wright, Wright & Egkford and Marion & Huff-caster, counsel for appellants.

Simpkins & Smith and Allen & Vesey, counsel for 'appellees.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 335. *Bes adjudícala; merger of causes of action; judgment against principal will not bar suit against sureties on official bond, when; case slated.*Appellees recovered a judgment for damages against James A. McKee, United States marshal for the northern district of Texas, for seizing and selling under attachments a lot of merchandise belonging to them. McKee, after the recovery of said judgment, died insolvent. Appellees then instituted this suit against the sureties upon the official bond of said McKee as marshal aforesaid, and recovered judgment against them for the value of the said property converted by their principal. It is contended by appellants that appellees have no cause of action against them; that they are not liable for the tort of their principal; that, even if they were, the judgment against their principal individually is *res adjudicata*and a bar to this suit. *Held:*The sureties upon the official bond of a sheriff or marshal are liable fora trespass committed by their principal in taking under valid process of execution the property of a person not a party to the writ. [Holliman v. Carroll, 27 Tex. 23; Brandt on Suretyship and Guaranty, § 484.] A recovery against a principal alone, without satisfaction, for a matter which constitutes a breach of his official bond, is not a bar to a subsequent suit against him and his sureties on the bond. *405Such a recovery does not operate as a merger. But if the judgment be satisfied it is a merger and a bar to a subsequent suit. [Brandt on Sur. and Guar. § 488; Freeman on Judg. § 236; Treasurers v. Sureties of Oswald, 2 Bailey L. (S. C.) 214; Charles v. Haskins, 11 Iowa, 329.]

January 14, 1888.

§ 336. *Conclusions of judge; exceptions to; rule as to; error, to be reversible, must be material, etc.*The cause was tried by the judge without a jury, and he filed his conclusions of law and fact, to which no exceptions were made, and no exceptions were made to the judgment. *Held:*Where no exceptions are taken to the conclusions of law of the judge or to the judgment, the only inquiry on appeal will be as to whether the pleadings authorized the judgment. [Ins. Co. v. Millikin, 66 Tex. 46.] In this case the pleadings support the judgment for the value of the property, and there is nothing in the record to show that the measure of damage adopted by the court has injured appellants. “An error, to he material, so as to require the reversal of a judgment, must be one that has not been waived, and that is prejudicial to the party complaining.” [Johnson v. Blount, 48 Tex. 40.]

Affirmed.
Exhibit 13.1
 Certifications of the CEO AND CFO  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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 result of operations of the Company.
  By:
    /s/ GEOFFREY B. GENOVESEName:
    Geoffrey B. GenoveseTitle:
    Chairman, President and
Chief Executive OfficerBy:
    /s/ J. JOSEPH LEEDERName:
    J. Joseph LeederTitle:
    Vice President Mergers and Acquisitions
and Chief Financial Officer  76
#### Eli H. CORTES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D10-3114.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Feb. 4, 2011.

Eli H. Cortes, Perry, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

*ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE*

PER CURIAM.

In his 2000 case, Eli Cortes [“Cortes”] was convicted of three drug trafficking charges, and his convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. *Cortes v. State,*827 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). He subsequently filed several other post-conviction motions and appeals pertaining to the 2000 convictions and sentences. In this current proceeding, Cortes appealed the denial of his two most recent rule 3.800(a) motions to correct illegal sentence. We affirmed, *Cortes v. State,*48 So.3d 855 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), then issued a show cause order pursuant to *State v. Spencer,*751 So.2d 47 (Fla.1999), because the motions appeared to be successive and/or procedurally barred.

Having considered Cortes’ response, we conclude that he has provided no valid reason for filing this frivolous appeal, that *391he is abusing the judicial process, and that he should be barred from further pro se filings. We therefore prohibit Cortes from filing with this Court any further *pro se*pleadings concerning Orange County Circuit Court Case No. 00-CF-4485. *See Isley v. State,*652 So.2d 409, 410-11 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); *see also Bauer v. State,*31 So.3d 220, 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Any additional pleadings or motions in this case will be summarily rejected by the Clerk, unless they are filed by a member in good standing with The Florida Bar.

The Clerk of this Court is directed to forward a certified copy of this opinion to the appropriate institution for consideration of disciplinary action. *See*§§ 944.09, 944.279(1), 944.28(2), Fla. Stat. (2010).

Future *pro se*filings PROHIBITED; Certified Opinion FORWARDED to Department of Corrections.

GRIFFIN, SAWAYA, and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                             McLEODUSA INCORPORATED

                     COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
                 (AMOUNTS IN MILLIONS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)


                                                            Three Months Ended
                                                                March 31,
                                                           --------------------
                                                               2000       1999
                                                             ------     ------
Computation of weighted average number of
 common shares outstanding:
Common shares, Class A, outstanding at the
 beginning of the period.................................     472.8      382.1
Common shares, Class B, outstanding at the
 beginning of the period (A).............................       ---        ---
Weighted average number of shares issued
 during the period.......................................       6.9       14.6
                                                             ------     ------
Weighted average number of common shares.................     479.7      396.7
                                                             ======     ======
Net loss.................................................    $(72.1)    $(47.5)
                                                             ======     ======
Loss per common share....................................    $(0.15)    $(0.12)
                                                             ======     ======

(A) All shares have been adjusted to give effect to the three-for-one stock
    split effected in the form of a stock dividend effective April 24, 2000.

(B) The Class B common stock, $.01 par value per share is convertible on a one-
    for-one basis at any time at the option of the holder into Class A common
    stock.  As of March 31, 2000, all shares of Class B common stock have been
    converted into shares of Class A common stock.
#### Karen PLEASURE v. LOUISIANA ORGAN PROCUREMENT AGENCY (LOPA). Karen Pleasure v. West Jefferson Medical Center.

No. 2012-C-0280.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 13, 2012.

In re Pleasure, Karen; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. P, Nos. 669-553, 669-555; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. ll-CA-175, ll-CA-176.

Denied.

JOHNSON and KNOLL, JJ., would grant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FOR UNION
NATIONAL BANCORP'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN IT'S ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       6,612,103
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          12,135
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            19,583,461
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 79,138,493
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      23,723,414
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    164,603,753
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,778,441
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             299,737,415
<DEPOSITS>                                 227,663,277
<SHORT-TERM>                                27,730,571
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,941,257
<LONG-TERM>                                 20,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,537
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,383,773
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             299,737,415
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,499,238
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,458,347
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               138,988
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,096,573
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,008,774
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,417,910
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,678,663
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   59,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,069,624
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                926,306
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   677,715
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.41
<LOANS-NON>                                    409,596
<LOANS-PAST>                                   126,010
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                665,415
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,772,895
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   58,603
<RECOVERIES>                                     5,150
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,778,441
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,778,441
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>