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



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Richard C. Abbott, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bay Banks of Virginia, Inc;



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual 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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:
March 26, 2004



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Richard C. Abbott                     
|Richard C. Abbott                         
|Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer
<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 Quarterly Report of General Media, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert C. Guccione, 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) 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 this Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.


                                                /s/ Robert C. Guccione
                                                -----------------------------
                                                Chief Executive Officer

  November 14, 2002
News United States Air Force
 479 selected for top enlisted rankPublished Nov. 20, 2014
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Of the 2,525 senior master sergeants eligible for promotion to chief, 479 were selected for an 18.97 percent selection rate, Air Force Personnel Center officials announced Nov. 20.
To see the selection list, go to the Air Force Portal, or myPers. Airmen will be able to access their score notices on the virtual military personnel flight and the Air Force Portal.
Enlisted promotions are based on weighted factors including time-in-grade, time-in-service, enlisted performance reports, medals, promotion fitness exam and skills knowledge test for staff through master sergeants and the U.S. Air Force supervisory examination for senior and chief master sergeants. For senior and chief master sergeants, selection board scores are also included.
The average score for those selected for chief master sergeant was 671.45, with an average time-in-grade of 3.21 years and time-in-service of 21.84 years. The average score for enlisted performance reports was 135. Average decorations score was 24.22, and the average Air Force Supervisory Exam score was 69.91. The average board score was 393.84.
Those selected will be promoted according to their promotion sequence number beginning in January. Selections are tentative until the data verification process is complete, which is no later than 10 days after the promotion release date. Airmen will be notified if their selection is in question.
For more information about promotions and other personnel issues, visit the myPers website. Air Force retirees who do not have a myPers account can request access here.*(Information courtesy of Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs)*Air Force leaders 



promotions 



enlisted promotions 



chief 



rank 



PME 



AFPC Related Links
        myPers
            
            The Air Force Portal
exv10w1






Exhibit 10.1




FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE




NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC.




EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN



The Navigant Consulting, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended on this
19th day of December 2008 to be effective April 1, 2009 as follows:





	1.	 	Section VII. Purchase of Shares, paragraph (b), shall be amended to read as follows:






“The per share purchase price for the Common Stock to be purchased with payroll deductions
from the Participant will equal ninety percent of Fair Market Value on the Purchase Date.”




	2.	 	Section VIII. Time of Purchase, shall be amended by deleting the sixth sentence of the second
paragraph thereof and inserting the following sentences after the fifth sentence of the second
paragraph thereof:






“The Committee may require the shares of Common Stock be retained by the Participant for a
designated period of time and/or may establish other procedures to permit tracking of
disqualifying dispositions of such shares of Common Stock. Subject to the holding period
described in the following sentence, a Participant may, at any time notify the Committee to
sell them and distribute the proceeds to him, net of all commission costs incurred in
connection with the sale of Common Stock. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan
to the contrary, all shares of Common Stock purchased by a Participant cannot be sold or
otherwise transferred by the Participant to anyone else until six months after the Purchase
Date.”




	3.	 	Section XV. Limitations, paragraph (g), shall be amended to read as follows:






“The plan is intended to provide shares of Common Stock for investment and not for resale.
A Participant may sell shares of Common Stock purchased under the Plan, subject to
compliance with Section VIII hereof and with any applicable federal or state securities
laws or any applicable Company restriction periods. Notwithstanding the foregoing, because
of certain federal tax requirements, each Participant agrees, by entering the Plan:”













 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Navigant Consulting, Inc. has caused this Amendment to be executed by its
officer hereto duly authorized this 19th day of December, 2008.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Navigant Consulting, Inc., a Delaware corporation	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ William M. Goodyear	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Its:
	 	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### Stephanie STANLEY v. John Christopher REAMS.

No. 2011-C-0389.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Reams, John Christopher; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. F, No. 2008-12130; to *688the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-1346.

Denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certifications Under Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Michael H. Owens and RichardM. Gomberg hereby certify to the best of their knowledge that:

 

1.               They are the ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of iVOW, Inc.

 

2.               TheForm 10-KSB of iVOW Inc. that this certification accompanies fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

3.               Theinformation contained in the Form 10-KSB of iVOW Inc. that thiscertification accompanies fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of iVOW, Inc.

 

Date: March 31, 2006

 

 
| /s/  Michael H. Owens   |       |
|-------------------------|------------|
| **Michael H. Owens**    |       |
|                    |       |
| /s/  Richard M. Gomberg |       |
| **Richard M.  Gomberg** | ** ** |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 has been provided to iVow, Inc. and will be retained by iVow, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
#### DILLARD UNIVERSITY v. Robert GRAVOIS and Craig Webre, in his Capacity as Ex-Officio Tax Collector for the Parish of Lafourche.

No. 2011-CC-0681.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Gravois, Robert et al.; Webre, Craig; —Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 101860; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 1951.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re O.O. and A.G., Relators

Appellate case number: 01-15-00430-CV

Trial court case number: 2015-02330J

Trial court: 314th Juvenile District Court of Harris County

On May 7, 2015, relators, O.O. and A.G., filed a petition for a writ of mandamus

seeking to vacate the respondent trial court’s April 28, 2015 temporary order following 

adversary hearing. This temporary order appointed the real party in interest, Department 

of Family and Protective Services (“DFPS”), as temporary managing conservator of the

relators’ child, A.G., and limited relators’ access to and possession of the child to twice a 

week in the above-referenced trial cause number in a suit affecting the parent-child 

relationship. Also on May 7, 2015, relators filed an emergency motion for a stay of all 

trial court orders affecting custody and access to the child, A.G., until this Court resolves 

their petition for a writ of mandamus.

Accordingly, we grant the motion, in part, and ORDER that the portion of the trial 

court’s April 28, 2015 temporary order, to the extent that it limits relators’ visitation with 

and access to the child, A.G., is stayed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b). This stay is 

effective until the mandamus petition is finally decided or this Court otherwise orders the 

stay lifted. See id. Any party may move for reconsideration of the stay. See id. at 

52.10(c).

Further, the Court requests a response to the petition for writ of mandamus by the 

real party in interest DFPS. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b)(1). The response, if any, shall be 

filed within 7 days from the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 52.4.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn Keyes

 x Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 8, 2015
PATRICK J. O'HAVER

,

Petitioner

,

v.

JULIE L. JONES, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and FLORIDA COMMISSION ON OFFENDER REVIEW
, Respondent s

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 4816

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 6, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari.

Patrick J. O’ Haver, pro se , Petitioner

. Kenneth S. Steely , General Couns el, and Beverly Brewster, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Corrections ; Rana Wallace, General Co unsel, Florida Commission on O ffender Review , Tallahassee , for Respondent s

.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED

.

ROWE

, MAKAR

, and BILBREY
, J J

. , CONCUR.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Bryan E. MOBLEY.

No. 2011-KK-1132.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Mobley, Bryan E.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Beauregard, 36th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. CR2010-462; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW11-00146.

Denied.
#### Turnley, Levey & Co. v. M. C. Michael.

(No. 3063.)

Appeal from Galveston County.

Waul & Walker, counsel for appellants.

J. B. & C. J. Stubbs, counsel for appellees.

Opinion by

White, P.J.

§ 223. *Contract; construction of as to compensation of real estate broker for sale of land; case stated.*Appellants brought this suit to recover $500, which they claimed as real estate brokers was due them on the sale by them of certain real property at the instance of and belonging to appellees. There is but a single question in the case, and that is as to the meaning and proper construction of certain words used in the contract between the parties. When the appellants were finally authorized to sell the property for $7,500,. the language used by Michael, appellee, acting for himself and the other owners, was, “I will take $7,500 net to me.” The appellants sold the property for $8,000, and the purchaser paid the money to appellees. Appellants demanded $500, the amount over and above $7,500, and, being refused, brought this suit. The case was tried below by the judge without a jury, and he gave judgment for appellants for $208, it being two and one-half per cent, commissions on $8,000, the amount for which the property was sold, together with the interest, and he filed conclusions of fact and law. What is the proper legal meaning of the word “ net,” as used in the contract? Mr. Webster, among others, defines it to be “clear of all deductions and charges.” In Evans v. Wain, 71 Pa. St. 69, it was held that, “as applied to the proceeds of the sale of stock, the phrase ‘net balance’ means, in commercial usage, the balance of the proceeds, after deduct*364ing the expenses incident to the sale.” In Scott v. Hartley (Ind.), 25 N. E. Rep. 826, the word “net” is defined: “That which remains after the deduction of all charges and outlay, as ‘net profits,’” etc.; “also clear of all charges and deductions, as ‘net profit,’ ‘net income,’ ‘net weight,”’ etc.; and it w~as held in that case that evidence of custom tending to contradict the meaning of the words “net price” was inadmissible, because the words were plain and unambiguous. We are of opinion that the word “net,” as used in the contract, meant that the property must bring to the owner at least $7,500 free of all expenses and deductions. We do not think the language is susceptible of the construction that the appellee Michael intended to give appellants all the land might sell for over $7,500 as their fees for their services. This was the view taken by the court below, and we are satisfied it is correct. There is some conflict in the evidence^ but sufficient evidence to support the findings and judgment of the court.

March 4, 1891.

Affirmed.
----

| SOUTH      JERSEY GAS COMPANY          |
|----------------------------------------|
| SUBSIDIARIES      OF REGISTRANT        |
| AS      OF DECEMBER 31, 2009           |
|                                   |   |   |   |
|                                   | Percentage      of |   |   |
|                                   | Voting      Securities |   | State      of |
|                                   | Owned      by Parent | Relationship | Incorporation |
|                                   |   |   |   |
| South      Jersey Gas Company          | Registrant | Parent | New      Jersey |
|                                   |   |   |   |
| SJG      Capital Trust                 | 100 | Subsidiary | Delaware |
| (inactive      as of November 5, 2003) |   |   |   |

----
#### PLEASURE BEACH, L.L.C. v. Darryl SMITH.

No. 2011-C-0179.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2011.

In re Smith, Darryl; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. 2005-14552,; *669to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. 2010 CA 0238, 2010 CA 0826.

Denied.
#### Joseph J. HEINTZ, Jr., and Pauline Heintz, Appellants v. VILLAGE REALTY, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; Gallagher and McManus, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation; and Centralia Mining Company, a Pennsylvania corporation.

No. 13093.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit

Argued April 5, 1960.

Decided May 3, 1960.

William E. Taylor, Jr., Wilmington, Del., for appellants.

Arthur J. Sullivan, E. Dickinson Griffenberg, Wilmington, Del. (Killoran & Van Brunt, Wilmington, Del., Morris, James, Hitchens & Williams, Wilmington, Del. on the brief), for appellees.

Before McLAUGHLIN, STALEY and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this diversity action plaintiffs sought preliminary and permanent injunctions against defendants constructing a shopping center in Swanwyck, Delaware on the ground that the construction violated certain applicable building restrictions. After the court’s refusal to allow a temporary restraint of the construction, both sides moved for summary judgment. In granting the defense motion and denying that of plaintiffs, Chief Judge Wright held that the restrictions urged by appellants were not binding on the land involved. His opinion fully covers the issue and does, we think, soundly and fairly decide it.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed. 177 F.Supp. 491.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          23,067
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,207
<ALLOWANCES>                                       708
<INVENTORY>                                    146,709
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               202,504
<PP&E>                                         123,454
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,349
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 305,424
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,212
<BONDS>                                         90,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,359
<OTHER-SE>                                     130,008
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   305,424
<SALES>                                        156,250
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               156,250
<CGS>                                           85,578
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  152,530
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 587
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,133
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,255
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,878
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,878
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
        

</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. § 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-0XLEY ACT OF 2002
    /s/ Norman E. Drapeau, Jr.
    
    
    
    /s/ Peter J. RiceNorman E. Drapeau, Jr.
    
    
    
    Peter J. RicePresident & Chief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    Executive Vice President, Finance &Date: August 9, 2006
    
    
    
    Administration, CFO & TreasurerDate: August 9, 2006
(b) Exhibit 15 - Awareness Letter from Crowe, Chizek & Company LLP



July 14, 2000



Ottawa Financial Corporation
Holland, Michigan

We have  reviewed,  in accordance  with  standards  established  by the American
Institute of Certified  Public  Accountants,  the  unaudited  interim  financial
information of Ottawa Financial  Corporation for the periods ended June 30, 2000
and 1999 as  indicated  in our report  dated July 14,  2000.  Because we did not
perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information. We are aware that
our report  referred to above,  which was included in your  quarterly  report on
Form 10-Q, is being  incorporated by reference in Registration  Statements (File
Nos.  333-1350,  333-4242  and  333-79843)  on Form S-8 and in the  Registration
Statement (File No. 333-4950) on Form S-3.

We also are aware that our report referred to above, under Rule 436(c) under the
Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the  registration  statement
prepared or certified by an accountant  or a report  prepared or certified by an
accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.






Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________ 

) 

RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) Civil Action No. 13-0729 (PLF) 

) 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ) 

)

 Defendant. )

__________________________________________) 

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the Opinion issued this same day, it is hereby

ORDERED that the government’s renewed motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 

No. 53] is GRANTED; it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Shapiro’s renewed cross-motion for summary 

judgment [Dkt. No. 55] is DENIED; and it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that judgment shall be entered for the defendant. 

This is a final appealable order. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a). 

SO ORDERED. 

________________________

 PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

DATE: July 24, 2019 United States District Judge
858 A.2d 74

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Gerald HOWELL, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 21, 2004.

Norris E. Gelman, Esq., Philadelphia, for Gerald Howell.

*589Hugh J. Burns, Esq., Philadelphia, for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

BEFORE: CAPPY, C.J., and CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, EAKIN and BAER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 21st day of September, 2004, the appeal is DISMISSED as having been improvidently granted.