alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2 – Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxleyact of 2002
I, Todd H. Katz, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TarponCoast Bancorp, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s)and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in the 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thesmall business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (thesmall business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and theaudit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent function):
(a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesigned or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
16

 

small businessissuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: October 25, 2004 /s/ Todd H. Katz
#### J. Hill *v.*E. A. Morris.

Forcible Entry and Detainer — Forcible Detainer — Possession Obtained by Purchase — Possession Obtained as Tenant.

The appellant entered under a contract as tenant with the privilege to purchase the land by paying the specified sum on the day named, and, failing to comply, he thereby elected to hold as tenant, and, having refused to surrender possession at the end of the year, he subjected himself to be proceeded against as a forcible detainer.

APPEAL PROM HICKMAN CIRCUIT COURT.

January 9, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

Appellee having succeeded in the circuit court on a traverse to that court in a proceeding for a forcible detainer, appellant has brought the case to this court for revision.

It appears from the evidence that in January, 1869, the parties to this controversy entered into an alternative parol contract by which appellants' agreed to pay appellee $800 for the land, $175 of which he was to pay on or before the 1st of March, 1869, and if he failed to pay said sum on that day he was to hold and occupy the land as tenant of appellee and pay him $100 for one year’s rent, and having failed to pay the money stipulated to be paid on the first day fixed and refused to surrender possession at the end of the year to appellee, this proceeding was instituted.

It is insisted on the authority of *Jack v Corneal,*2 A. K. Mar. 519, that this proceeding cannot be maintained. In that case Jack, having been dispossessed of the land by a writ of *habere facias possessionem,*entered into a contract with Carneal for the purchase of the land in contest, and having continued in possession under the contract for some time, the parties finally by *356mutual consent cancelled, the contract, and Jack took a lease from Cai'neal for the land, and at the end of the lease, Jack having i-efused to restore the possession, Carneal caused to be issued fi-om a justice of the peace a warx'ant for a forcible detainer, and the court held that Jack having entered under the contract to purchase, could not have become thereby CarneaFs *tenant*so as liable to be proceeded against as a forcible detainer, and the case of *Hays v. Connel’s heirs,*1st Mar. 393, is referred to as sustaining that doctrine, and the court concludes that it is only when the possession is obtained by the defendant as *tenant,*that, he can be adjudged guilty of forcibly detaining the premises by refusing to restore the possession.

*Bullock, for appellant.*

*'Lindsey for appellee.*

In this case it can not be said that appellant entered under a contract to purchase, but it was from the evidence father an entry as a tenant with the privilege to purchase the land by paying the specified sum on the day named and, having failed to comply, he elected to hold as *tenant*and, having refused to surrender possession at the end of the year, as from the evidence, he contracted to do, he subjected'himself to be proceeded against as a forcible detainer. As the instructions of the court below conformed to these views they were not erroneous, and the judgment must be affixmed.

Judge Lindsay did not sit in this case.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.2

Western Division

Stephen Cassell, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 3:20−cv−50153

Honorable John Z. Lee

David Snyders, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Saturday, May 2, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee: Plaintiffs The Beloved Church

and Stephen Carrell filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary

injunction on 4/30/2020. In their motion, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to permit them to

gather for worship at their church on Sunday, 5/3/20, despite Governor Pritzker's

Executive Order 2020−32 (dated 4/30/2020). The Court ordered expedited briefing, and

Defendants filed their responses at 5:00 p.m. on 5/1/20, and Plaintiffs filed their reply at

2:00 p.m. on 5/2/20. After due consideration, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction [6]. The Court will issue a written

opinion and order explaining its ruling shortly. Mailed notice(ca, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 3:20-cv-50153 Document #: 37 Filed: 05/02/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:286
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Abby Graf","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/agraf\/","title":"Mars Audio Log #8","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"25i9T8JmG4\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/podcasts\/houston-we-have-a-podcast\/mars-audio-log-8\/\">Mars Audio Log #8<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/podcasts\/houston-we-have-a-podcast\/mars-audio-log-8\/embed\/#?secret=25i9T8JmG4\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Mars Audio Log #8” — NASA\" data-secret=\"25i9T8JmG4\" 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\/2024\/03\/chapea-featured-img.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350) 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Most Home Corp., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended October 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Michael Schutz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

|  
 
 
 
Date: December 10, 2007
 
/s/ Michael Schutz
 
 
Michael		Schutz		Chief Financial Officer
 

 

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Most Home Corp. and will be retained by Most Home Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.] |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-3604

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jerry R. Wheeler, also known as Love, also known as Jerry Wheeler

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

 ____________

Submitted: September 11, 2024 

Filed: September 16, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Wheeler appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he

pleaded guilty to drug and firearm offenses pursuant to a plea agreement containing

1The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.
an appeal waiver. His counsel has requested leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sentence as

substantively unreasonable and asserting that plea counsel was ineffective.

We decline to consider Wheeler’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in

this direct appeal. See United States v. Hernandez, 281 F.3d 746, 749 (8th Cir. 2002)

(in general, ineffective-assistance claim is not cognizable on direct appeal; such claim

is properly raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action). Upon careful review, we conclude that

the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the remaining issue raised

in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo

review of validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333

F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal

falls within scope of waiver, defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into plea

agreement and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of

justice).

We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal falling outside the scope

of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal based on the appeal waiver

and grant counsel leave to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT  4.11


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                                  PROLIQ, INC.


Proliq, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the General Corporation
Law of the State of New Jersey (the "Corporation") does hereby certify that
provision for the making of the following amendment to the Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation is contained in an Order, a copy of which is
attached, (the "Order") dated January 30, 2001 of the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Court") in In re KCS Energy,
                                                               -----------------
Inc., et al., Debtors, Case No. 00-0028 (PJW) and Case Nos. 00-0310 (PJW)
---------------------
through 00-0318 (PJW) confirming the KCS Energy, Inc. et al., Debtors Chapter 11
Plan of Reorganization:

                  A new Article (h) is hereby added to the end of the
                  Certificate of Incorporation:

         "(h)     Notwithstanding anything contained in this Certificate of
                  Incorporation to the contrary, the Corporation shall not
                  authorize or issue any non-voting equity securities or
                  authorize or issue any classes of securities possessing voting
                  power, in either case without complying with the provisions of
                  Title 11 United States Code Section 1123(a)(6)."

                  The undersigned persons certify that, pursuant to the Order of
the Bankruptcy Court, the Corporation, this 15th day of February, 2001, has
caused this Certificate of Amendment to be signed by its President and attested
by its Secretary, and affirm that the statements contained herein are true.

ATTEST:                                     PROLIQ, INC.

/s/ Frederick Dwyer                         /s/ James W. Christmas
-------------------------------             ------------------------------------
Frederick Dwyer, Secretary                  James W. Christmas, President
Exhibit 32.2   CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   I, Michael P. Wilson, CFO of Timberline Resources Corporation (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  1.  This Annual Report on 10KSB of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2005, as amended, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.  Date: January 24, 2007.  /s/ Michael P. Wilson _______________________ Michael P. Wilson (CFO)
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the AnnualReport of U.S. Premium Beef, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the periodended August 27, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven D. Hunt, Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

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

 

|   |   |                                                  |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
| By:    |   |  /s/ Steven D. Hunt                              |
|   |   |  Steven D. Hunt

* Chief Executive Officer* |

 

Date: November 16, 2011
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 B&G  Foods,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  June 28, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robert
C. Cantwell,  Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.



/s/ Robert C. Cantwell
-----------------------
Robert C. Cantwell
Chief Financial Officer
July 23, 2003
EXHIBIT 11
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


                                                       Three months ended
                                                            June 30,
                                                            --------
                                                     2000               1999
                                                     ----               ----

Net Income                                       $   807,000        $  584,000
                                                 ===========        ==========
Average shares outstanding                         1,810,744         2,177,986
                                                 ===========        ==========
Basic earnings per share                         $      0.45        $     0.27
                                                 ===========        ==========

Net Income                                       $   807,000        $  584,000
                                                 ===========        ==========
Average shares outstanding                         1,810,744         2,177,986
Net effect of dilutive stock options                      --                --
                                                 -----------        ----------
Total shares outstanding                           1,810,744         2,177,986
                                                 ===========        ==========
Diluted earnings per share                       $      0.45        $     0.27
                                                 ===========        ==========
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-1613

___________ United States of America, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v.. * District of Arkansas. * Tiffany Manning, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 27, 2005 Filed: December 30, 2005

___________ Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. The government appeals the sentence imposed on Tiffany Manning after Manning pleaded guilty to interstate transportation of stolen firearms. We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. In calculating Manning’s advisory sentencing range under the federal Sentencing Guidelines, the district court interpreted United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), as prohibiting the impositi on of any sentencing enhancements not based on facts admitted by Manning or pr oven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We have previously specifically rej ected such an interpretation. See United States v.-2- Salter , 418 F.3d 860, 862 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Haack , 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 276 (2005). Manning’s advisory Guidelines range would have been significantly highe r had the district court imposed the enhancements recommended by the presen tence report, and nothing in the record suggests that the district court would have imposed the same sentence had it properly applied the Guidelines and Booker . Accordingly, the error was not harmless, and remand is appropriate. See United States v. Garcia-Juarez , 421 F.3d 655, 657-59 (8th Cir. 2005) (although Guidelines are now a dvisory, sentence imposed as result of incorrect application of Guidelines requi res remand for resentencing unless error was harmless; error in failing to impose enha ncement when calculating Guidelines range was not harmless because imposition of enhancement “would have significantly increased” defendant’s Guidelines range); United States v. Hadash , 408 F.3d 1080, 1082 (8th Cir. 2005) (post-Booker , if district court incorr ectly applied Guidelines, this court will remand unless error was harmle ss, such as when district court would have imposed same sentence absent error).

______________________________