alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, Robert W. Schleizer, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Xponential, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.     Date: November 13, 2006 /s/ Robert W. Schleizer         Robert W. Schleizer, Executive    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Loura Hall","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/loura-hallnasa-gov\/","title":"Green Propellant Infusion Mission Fires Thrusters for the First Time","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"xCvfkzoLou\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/tech-demonstration\/green-propellant-infusion-mission-fires-thrusters-for-the-first-time\/\">Green Propellant Infusion Mission Fires Thrusters for the First Time<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/tech-demonstration\/green-propellant-infusion-mission-fires-thrusters-for-the-first-time\/embed\/#?secret=xCvfkzoLou\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Green Propellant Infusion Mission Fires Thrusters for the First Time” — NASA\" data-secret=\"xCvfkzoLou\" 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:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/gpimthruster2.gif?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":184}
#### Bryant Nichols *v.*George Jenkins.

Action — Pendency of Another Suit — Demurrer.

The pendency of another suit cannot be shown by demurrer, but must be taken advantage of by answer.

APPEAL FROM CALDWELL CIRCUIT COURT.

February 8, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

The petition avers that he plaintiff purchased of defendant land at $1^00, for which he gave his three several notes for $200. $310 and $800, and paid $400; that the defendant assigned the $200 note to Moore, and that subsequently being sued for a portion of the land by Weeks devisees under an adverse claim, to which the defendant was also a party, it was arbitrated and through mistake and oversight it was agreed that this plaintiff owed this defendant $1300, with its interest, entirely overlooking the fact that the $200 note had before been assigned. This acknowledged indebtedness of Nichols to Jenkins was transferred to Weeks devisees by way of cancelling their claim, and judgment rendered accordingly against Nichols, by which Jenkins was released of that much of his liability to Weeks devisees, and subsequently Moore, the assignee, recovered judgment on the $200 note against Nichols-; whereupon he brought this suit, when Jenkins demurred:

1. Because the petition “shows no cause of action.”

*397
      *James R. Hewlett, for appellant.*

2. Because there was another suit pending between the same parties for the same cause of action.

As the pendency of another suit could not be shown by demurrer, but must be taken advantage of by answer.

We will confine the consideration of the case entirely to the first assigned cause of demurrer.

There is not nor need be an averment that the plaintiff had paid the $200 note; when the arbitration was made the defendant only held plaintiff’s notes for $1100; when, therefore, the plaintiff cancelled Jenkins obligation to Weeks devisees for two hundred dollars more than he owed him, it was that much money paid and laid out to Jenkins use, and an action could be maintained on it without even averring that Moore had recovered a judgment.

Jenkins evidently got $200 more than he was entitled to, if the statements of the petition be true, and is responsible either to Moore or plaintiff — we think to the latter; it was therefore erroneous to sustain the demurrer, and the judgment is reversed, with directions for further proceedings as indicated.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof IGS Capital Group Limited (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kok Seng Yeap, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: May 17, 2018

 

 

/s/ Kok Seng Yeap
Exhibit
13.2








PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with this Annual Report of CalPetro Tankers (IOM) Limited (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Kate Blankenship, Principal Financial 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


A signed
original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.





Date:
April 29, 2010














/s/  Kate Blankenship


Kate
Blankenship


Principal
Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES v. MORRISON.

No. 4437.

District Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D.

June 14, 1947.

Dick F. Bennett, Dist. Enforcement Atty., Eugene F. O’Keefe and Stephen V. Medling, Enforcement Attys., all of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

J. K. Owens, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, District Judge.

On the trial of this cause it was suggested by counsel for defendant that the statute and regulations with respect to maximum prices had been repealed and suspended during the month of October, 1946, and, that, since the case was filed on November 5, 1946, there was a question whether the rights of the plaintiff were not waived or abandoned or destroyed by such interim. It was for that reason that immediate disposition of the case 'was not made.

The facts are not disputed: On December *4,*1945 the defendant sold to one Hubert E. Seiner, Bolivar, Missouri, one 1939 Ford Tudor Sedan with radio and heater, motor number 4676152, for the price and sum of $800. The maximum selling price at that time for that type car with equipment as above stated was $561.40. There was admittedly an overcharge of $238.60. The purchaser failed to institute an action and therefore the government proceeded under the provisions of Sec. 205 (c) (e) of the Act as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 925 (c,e). The plaintiff seeks treble *788damages but prays in its complaint that restitution be made to the purchaser.

It should be ordered that the defendant pay to Hubert E. Seiner, Bolivar, Missouri, the sum of $238.60 within 30 days from this date or otherwise execution will issue for said sum with costs. It should be further ordered that the defendant pay the United States Government a like amount. This will be equivalent to double instead of treble damages and judgment will be entered accordingly on the second count.

The first count of the complaint should be dismissed for the reason that the statute and regulations with respect to prices of used automobiles have been repealed and the defendant should not be enjoined from violating a law that no' longer exists.

The break in the continuity of the law did not affect rights already attached.
IIA

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 652

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 12, 1997

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

AN ACT

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act for

the construction of a hydroelectric project located in the

State of Washington, and for other purposes.

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

HR 652 RFS

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period

3 specified in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16

4 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to Federal Energy

5 Regulatory Commission project numbered 9025, the Com6 mission shall, upon the request of the project licensee, in

7 accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and public

8 interest requirements of that section and the Commis9 sion’s procedures under that section, extend the time pe10 riod during which the licensee is required to commence

11 construction of the project for not more than 3 consecutive

12 2-year periods.

13 (b) APPLICABILITY.—An extension under subsection

14 (a) shall take effect for a project upon the expiration of

15 the extension, issued by the Commission under section 13

16 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806), of the period

17 required for commencement of construction of the project.

18 (c) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.—If the

19 license for the project referred to in subsection (a) has

20 expired prior to the date of enactment of this Act, the

21 Commission shall reinstate the license effective as of the

22 date of its expiration and extend the time required for

23 commencement of construction of the project as provided

24 in subsection (a) for not more than 3 consecutive 2-year
3

HR 652 RFS

1 periods, the first of which shall commence on the date of

2 such expiration.

Passed the House of Representatives March 11,

1997.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Brian C. Odom","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/briancodom\/","title":"Richard H. Truly","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"wOOGhmXCM8\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/richard-h-truly\/\">Richard H. Truly<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/richard-h-truly\/embed\/#?secret=wOOGhmXCM8\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Richard H. Truly” — NASA\" data-secret=\"wOOGhmXCM8\" 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:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/richard-h.-truly-gpn-2002-000090.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":771}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS INCLUDED IN
THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          50,054
<SECURITIES>                                    30,676
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,684
<PP&E>                                           6,948
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,758
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,930
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        60,849
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,559)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    96,758
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,121
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,740
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,454
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,369
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,085
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,085
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
7980.

#### Swain, for use, etc., *v.*Jaudon *et al.*

Decided May 14, 1918.

Action on bond; from Effingham superior court—Judge Sheppard. October 16, 1916.

Jenkins, J.

Under the rulings announced by the Supreme Court (147 *Ga.*773, 95 S. E. 696), in response to the questions certified to it by this'court in the present case, the judgment sustaining the demurrer to the petition was in accordance with law, and must stand affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade O. J., and Luke, J., concur.*

*277The action was against a sheriff and the sureties on his official bond. From the petition it appearéd: that in a divorce case in which alimony was allowed, the court, contemporaneously with the filing of the petition for divorce and alimony, passed an order “that the writ of ne exeat república-be and is hereby granted, and said defendant is hereby stayed from departing bqyond the jurisdictional limits of this court until it is further ordered herein;” and that “bond in the penal sum of $720 be taken from the defendant in terms of the statute.” The clerk of the court thereupon issued a writ directed to the sheriff, requiring that officer to arrest the body of the defendant and to keep him safely “until he enters into bond and security, in the said sum of $720, not to depart the State without the order of said court, and Conditioned to pay any judgment that may be found against him in favor of his wife, . . . ; in default thereof to. confine him in the common jail of said county, according to the statutes in such eases made and provided.” It was alleged that the sheriff did not require him to give the ne exeat bond, but arrested him, and, after having him in custody, permitted him to escape and remain away from the jurisdiction of the court; that the sheriff was informed of the whereabouts of the defendant and was advised to arrest him and lodge- him in jail in obedience to the writ of ne exeat, but refused to do so; and that because of these facts his wife and child were unable to force him to comply with the judgments granting alimony.

In response to certified questions of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held, that, under the facts stated therein, only a bond for the appearance of the principal could have been lawfully required, and that the writ requiring the taking of a bond not only for the personal appearance of the defendant, but for the payment of the judgment for alimony, was void, and. the sheriff could avail himself of this fact as a defense to this' suit. • It was also held that this suit is not of the class of cases of which the Supreme Court is given jurisdiction by the constitution, art. 6, sec. 2, par. 5 (Park’s Code, Supp. ,1917, § 6502). See more full report in 147 *Ga.*773.

*D. II. Clark,*for plaintiff.

*Travis & Travis, Paul P. Seabrook,*for defendants.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                                     BETWEEN
                                IPC BRIDGE, INC.
                        AND GERALD E. STARR ("AGREEMENT")


Paragraph 3 (a) of the Agreement is hereby modified and amended by deleting
therefrom "One Hundred and Fifty Thousand ($150,000.00)" and substituting
therefor "Two Hundred Thousand ($200,000.00)."

All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.

Accepted and Agreed, as of this 21st day of May, 1996:

IPC BRIDGE, INC.                            GERALD E. STARR

/s/ Daniel Utevsky                          /s/ Gerald E. Starr
------------------------------------        ----------------------------------
9089.

#### Hester *v.*McGinnis.

Decided April 9, 1918.

Luke, J.

1. A written waiver of homestead and exemption is good between the parties, though not shown by an execution issued upon a .suit based on the contract wherein the waiver was made, and is provable aliunde,, whether the lien of '-’-'a judgment be general or special. *Flemister*v. *Phillips,*65 *Ga.*676; *Broach*v. *Powell,*79 *Ga.*79, 81 (3 S. E. 763). See also *Davis*v. *Taylor,*103 *Ga.*366, 375 (30 S. E. 50).

2. Upon the petition for certiorari and the answer thereto the court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, 6. J., and Jenhins, J., concur.*

*138Certiorari; from Gwinnett superior court—Judge Cobb. July 5, 1917. ■

*D. K. Johnston,*for plaintiff in error. *Ó. A. Nix,*contra.