alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2   CERTIFICATION   I, Donald K. Daniel, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Health Realty, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  4. The registrant=s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the AEvaluation Date=); and  c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on such evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.  5. The registrant=s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant=s auditors and the audit committee of registrant=s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant=s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant=s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant=s internal controls; and  6. The registrant=s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.   Date:   May 3, 2007 /s/ Donald K. DanielDonald K. DanielSenior Vice President and Controller(Principal Financial Officer)
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Brian Crowder; 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Bravo Cleaning Services, LLC, an Arizona 

limited liability company; Rafael Bravo 

and Jane Doe Bravo, husband and wife 

 

Defendants

Case No. CV15-02277-PHX-DMF 

ORDER 

Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice (Doc. 21) and good 

cause shown, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice 

(Doc. 21). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice with 

each party to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

 Dated this 4th day of October, 2016. 

Honorable Deborah M. Fine

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02277-DMF Document 22 Filed 10/04/16 Page 1 of 1
NUMBER 13-13-00501-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF E. R. AND L. R., CHILDREN

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 148th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Daniel F. Rhamy, filed an appeal from a judgment rendered in a suit 

affecting the parent-child relationship. On October 11, 2013, the Clerk of this Court 

notified appellant that the clerk's record in the above cause was originally due on

September 30, 2013, and that the deputy district clerk, Tiffany Garza, had notified this 

Court that appellant failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. The 

Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct 

the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellant was 
2

advised that, unless arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record and proof of payment was 

provided to this Court within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice, the appeal 

would be dismissed for want of prosecution. 

Appellant has failed to respond to this Court’s notice. Accordingly, the appeal is 

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 7th

day of November, 2013.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Michael John Kaus, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Equifax Information Services LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-02044-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

A Notice of Settlement as to Equifax Information Services, LLC Only (Doc. 22) 

having been filed, 

IT IS ORDERED that this matter will be dismissed with prejudice as to Defendant 

Equifax Information Services, LLC only, 45 days after the docketing of this order unless 

the Plaintiff or Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC files a stipulation to 

dismiss prior to that date. The settlement constitutes an accord which has extinguished 

the underlying claim as to these two parties only. All pending hearings and motions 

relating to Plaintiff and Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC are deemed moot. 

 Dated this 21st day of March, 2016. 

 

 Honorable John J. Tuchi 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-02044-JJT Document 24 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Alivia R. Carruth","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/arcarrut\/","title":"Artemis I Launch","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"4H5YBkWl0e\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/amf-nhq202211160110\/\">Artemis I Launch<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/amf-nhq202211160110\/embed\/#?secret=4H5YBkWl0e\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Artemis I Launch” — NASA\" data-secret=\"4H5YBkWl0e\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/NHQ202211160110\/NHQ202211160110~large.jpg?w=600&h=1342&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1342}
#### RHEA LABOV, ET AL. v. GARY SHANK, ET AL.

September 12, 1989.

This matter having been duly considered by the Court, it is ORDERED that the appeal is hereby dismissed for failure to state a substantial constitutional question as required by *R.*2:2-1(a).
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         586,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  144,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    60,000
<INVENTORY>                                    326,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,018,000
<PP&E>                                         113,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 103,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,088,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          152,000
<BONDS>                                      1,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       130,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,933,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,088,000
<SALES>                                        842,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,104,000
<CGS>                                          496,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,794,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             312,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,498,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,498,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,498,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

Exhibit 32.1        Section 906 Certification of Chief Executive Officer

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the Form 10-Q) of Eastern Virginia Bankshares,
Inc. (the Company), I, Joe A. Shearin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Company as of and
for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                         |  |  |  |  |  |                     
|--- |  | ----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------
|    |  |                         |  | 
|By: |  | /s/ Joe A. Shearin      |  |  |  |  |  | Date: August 2, 2007
|    |  | Joe A. Shearin          |  |  |  |  |  |                     
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  |  |  |
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                CASE CORPORATION AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES

               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                            AND PREFERRED DIVIDENDS
                             (dollars in millions)
<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                 Years Ended
                                                                December 31,
                                                              -----------------
                                                              1998  1997  1996
                                                              ----- ----- -----
<S>                                                           <C>   <C>   <C>  
Net Income................................................... $  64 $ 403 $ 316
Add:
  Interest...................................................   240   170   160
  Amortization of capitalized debt expense...................     3     1     4
  Portion of rentals representative of interest factor.......    12    12    12
  Income tax expense and other taxes on income...............    42   191   185
  Fixed charges of 50% owned, unconsolidated subsidiaries....     5     3     3
  Extraordinary items (net of taxes).........................   --    --     33
                                                              ----- ----- -----
    Earnings as defined...................................... $ 366 $ 780 $ 713
                                                              ===== ===== =====

Interest..................................................... $ 240 $ 170 $ 160
Interest capitalized.........................................     3     2     1
Amortization of capitalized debt expense.....................     3     1     4
Portion of rentals representative of interest factor.........    12    12    12
Fixed charges of 50% owned, unconsolidated subsidiaries......     5     3     3
                                                              ----- ----- -----
    Fixed charges as defined................................. $ 263 $ 188 $ 180
                                                              ===== ===== =====
Preferred dividends:
  Amount declared............................................ $   7 $   7 $   7
  Gross-up to pre-tax based on 40%, 32% and 35% effective
   rates, respectively....................................... $  12 $  10 $  11
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred dividends... 1.33x 3.94x 3.73x
                                                              ===== ===== =====
</TABLE>
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 22, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00186-CV 

TATYANNA CORMIER, Appellant 

V. 

ALESIO GARDENS LP DBA ALESIO URBAN CENTER APPELLEE, 

Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-07665-B 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Goldstein 

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated July 15, 2024, we 

informed appellant her brief was overdue and directed appellant to file a brief within 

ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal 

of this appeal without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). To date, 

appellant has not filed a brief nor otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding 

the status of this appeal. 

 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8 (a)(1); 42.3(b), 

(c). 

240186F.P05 

 

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/

BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

TATYANNA CORMIER, Appellant 

No. 05-24-00186-CV V. 

ALESIO GARDENS LP DBA 

ALESIO URBAN CENTER 

APPELLEE, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-23-07665-

B. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Goldstein. Justices Reichek and 

Garcia participating. 

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

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered August 22, 2024
I

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4781

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the national

committees of political parties to file pre-general election reports with

the Federal Election Commission without regard to whether or not the

parties have made contributions or expenditures under such Act during

the periods covered by such reports.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 9, 1998

Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on House Oversight

A BILL

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to

require the national committees of political parties to

file pre-general election reports with the Federal Election

Commission without regard to whether or not the parties

have made contributions or expenditures under such Act

during the periods covered by such reports.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 4781 IH

1 SECTION 1. REQUIRING NATIONAL COMMITTEES OF POLIT2 ICAL PARTIES TO FILE CERTAIN PRE-GEN3 ERAL ELECTION REPORTS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 304(a)(4)(A)(ii) of the

5 Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C.

6 434(a)(4)(A)(ii)) is amended by striking ‘‘such election,’’

7 and inserting the following: ‘‘such election (together with,

8 in the case of a national committee of a political party,

9 any other general election),’’.

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

11 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to elections occur12 ring after January 1999.

Æ
#### WILLIAM J. SIMON v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POLICE AND FIREMEN’S RETIREMENT SYSTEM.

September 19, 1989.

Petition for certification denied. (See 238 *N.J.Super.*186).
**Exhibit 32**

 

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 theQuarterly Report of PSB Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in thecapacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to his knowledge:

 

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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 
| /s/  Anthony DiSandro,                                     |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| President  and Chief Executive Officer                     |   |
|                                                       |   |
| /s/  John Carrozza,                                        |   |
| Senior Vice President and  Acting  Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                                       |   |
| Dated:  August 16, 2004                                    |   |

 

1

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10689 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TODD BAINES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CR-00156-ALL-Y 

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender, court-appointed counsel for

Todd Baines, has moved for leave to withdraw from this appeal and

has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Baines has received a copy of counsel’s motion and

brief but has not filed a response. Our independent review

of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-86880, 33-86892, 33-93340, 333-32192, 333-48069,
and 333-48073) of our report dated March 8, 2002 relating to the financial
statements, which appear in the 2001 Annual Report to the Shareholders of Virbac
Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001. We also consent
to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 8, 2002 relating to
the financial statement schedules, which appears in such Annual Report on Form
10-K.



Fort Worth, Texas
March 20, 2002
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Guadalupe Henry Zambrano v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-16-00352-CR

Trial court case number: 1461905

Trial court: 232nd District Court of Harris County

On January 9, 2017, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief concluding 

that the above-referenced appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 

744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel did not, however, filed a motion to withdraw 

from representation. On January 26, 2017, we ordered appointed counsel, J. Sidney 

Crowley, to file with the Clerk of this Court a motion to withdraw no later than February 

7, 2017. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 9. To date, counsel has not filed a motion to withdraw. 

If appointed counsel believes that an appeal is frivolous, counsel must request 

permission to withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. An Anders brief 

must accompany a motion to withdraw; neither the brief nor the motion may be filed on 

its own. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Accordingly, we order appellant’s appointed counsel, J. Sidney Crowley, to 

file with the Clerk of this Court within 10 days of the date of this order a motion to 

withdraw that complies with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.5, 9, and 10.1. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5, 9, 10.1; Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 410, 412.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

  Acting individually 

Date: April 13, 2017