alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, A. Keith Wall certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Buffets Holdings, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or 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 informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       /s/ A. Keith Wall A. Keith Wall    Chief Financial Officer    (Principal Financial and Accounting    Officer)    Date: September 20, 2006
#### W. R. Thompson *v.*John Hockworth.

Attachment — Irresponsive Answer.

An answer by defendant in attachment more than five months after the filing of the petition of attachment, in which the defendant “denies that he is' about to sell or transfer or dispose of his ' property with intent to cheat,” etc., is not responsive to the petition because of the time which elapsed beween the filing of the petition and the answer.

APPEAL FROM LEWIS CIRCUIT COURT.

October 9, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Appellant, on the 17th day of November, 1868, filed his petition in which he stated that appellee was then “about to sell, convey or otherwise dispose of his property with the fraudulent intent to cheat, hinder, or delay his creditors.” More than five months afterwards, on the 21st of May, 1869, appellee answered, that “he most positively denies that he is about to sell or otherwise dispose of his property with intent to cheat, etc.”

He may have safely sworn that he was about to malee a fraudulent disposition of his property on the 21st of May, 1869, and yet it may have been true that he was about to do so five months before. It is apparent that appellee’s answer.does not controvert, nor attempt to controvert, the ground of attachment as set up by appellant in his petition, and we are satisfied from the proof that he could not have faithfully denied it. It was certain that he was secretly negotiating a sale of his lands when the order of attachment was sued out and, although he puts himself upon the witness stand to explain the transaction, and states in general terms that he used the moneys realized from the sale to pay his debts, he fails to specify a single debt paid, 'except one secured by a lien on one of the tracts of land included in the sale.

We conclude, therefore, as the ground of attachment is not controverted, and as the proof sufficiently sustains it, even if it had been, that the court below erred in discharging the order.

The judgment discharging the same is therefore reversed and the *172cause remanded with instructions to sustain it, and to subject the attached property to the payment of appellant’s judgment.

*Ireland, for appellant.*

-, *for appellee.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         190,990
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,578,297
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     80,192
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,849,478
<PP&E>                                       5,368,314
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,494,115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,973,784
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,155,606
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    340,815
<COMMON>                                         2,236
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,973,784
<SALES>                                      2,553,576
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,553,576
<CGS>                                          766,366
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  874,028
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,305,427
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (392,245)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (392,245)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (392,245)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4672 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4672

 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
  the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the 
                         State of Rhode Island.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 23, 2004

 Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island (for himself and Mr. Langevin) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
  Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
  the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the 
                         State of Rhode Island.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE COMPARATIVE COST 
              ADJUSTMENT (CCA) PROGRAM IN RHODE ISLAND.

    (a) In General.--Section 1860C-1(b) of the Social Security Act, as 
added by section 241 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, 
and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173), is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) No CCA areas within rhode island.--A CCA area shall 
        not include an MSA any portion of which is within the State of 
        Rhode Island.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in the enactment of the Medicare Prescription 
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund III, L.P. (the Registrant) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|                                                      
|/S/    LEO F. WELLS,
III                              
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief Executive Officer May 11, 2006



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|                                                        
|/S/    DOUGLAS P.
WILLIAMS                              
|Douglas P. Williams Chief Financial Officer May 11, 2006
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   
     We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to
the use of our report dated January 16, 1998 (except Note 19, as to which the
date is February 10, 1998), with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Cooperative Computing Holding Company, Inc. and our
report dated January 16, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Triad Systems Corporation, in Amendment No. 3 to the Registration
Statement (Form S-1 No. 333-49389) and related Prospectus of Cooperative
Computing, Inc. for the registration of $100 million of 9% Senior Subordinated
Notes due 2008.
    




                                                /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Austin, Texas
   
August 4, 1998
No. 87-6423.

#### Brecheisen *v.*Mondragon, Warden, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report of Siebert Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), I, Joseph M. Ramos, Jr., in my capacity as Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:

(1) the Report
filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and 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 for the period
covered by the report.

|                          |  |                     
|------------------------- |  | --------------------
|/s/ Joseph M.
 Ramos, Jr. |  | Date: March 31, 2011
|                          |  |                     
|Joseph M.
 Ramos, Jr.     |  |                     
|Chief
 Financial Officer  |  |                     

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or other documents authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by section
906, has been provided to Siebert Financial Corp. and will be retained by
Siebert Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,631
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,129
<ALLOWANCES>                                       221
<INVENTORY>                                      5,630
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,790
<PP&E>                                         216,368
<DEPRECIATION>                                 125,028
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,373
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,281
<BONDS>                                         34,491
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,759
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,911
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,373
<SALES>                                        111,095
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               111,095
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  100,988
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,554
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     98
<INCOME-TAX>                                        47
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 51
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        51
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

GREGORY WAYNE COTTON

NO. 2022 KW 0169

MAY 9, 2022

In Re: Gregory Wayne Cotton, applying for supervisory writs, 

22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Washington, 

No. 86 - CRC - 40823. 

BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ. 

WRIT GRANTED. The trial court is instructed, if it has not

already done so, to proceed toward disposition of relator' s

Motion to proceed under 1st Amend of the U. S. Constitution and

U. S. Supreme Court controlling Jurisprudence to have my

case/ claims heard," filed on December 20, 2021, on or before

June 6, 2022. 

JMG

GH

WRC

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED NOVEMBER 30,
1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                         395,027
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,453
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               401,480
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          401,480
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,002
<OTHER-SE>                                     387,402
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   401,480
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,765
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,960
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,195)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,195)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,195)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.3




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in this registration statement on
Form S-3 of our report dated October 17, 1997, on our audit of the National
Advertising Company - Lamar Acquisition statement of assets acquired and
liabilities assumed as of August 14, 1997 and the related statement of revenues
and expenses for the years ended December 31, 1996 and 1995, which report is
included in the Lamar Advertising Company's Form 8-K/A dated October 27, 1997.
We also consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts."


                                          /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

Chicago, Illinois
May 14, 1998
Creating an Augmented Reality 

Training Simulation for the National 

Bureau of Standards Reactor using 

Unity and the Microsoft Hololens

By Dineth Meegoda

Mentored by Dr. Dagistan Sahin
Introduction

● The NCNR hosts the National 

Bureau of Standards Reactor

● A 20 MW Nuclear Reactor used for 

research

● Operators must be vigorously 

trained

● Current training in classroom with 

occasional exercises
Project Goals

● Create an effective and interactive 

NSBR training simulator 

○ Accurate to the reactor

○ Perform well technically

● Be able to test hypothetical scenarios 

such as emergency situations

● Be able to update the virtual console

● Portable and easy to access
Technology Used*

● Unity Game Engine with scripting in C#

○ Interface to create and interact with 

virtual objects on many platforms

● Microsoft HoloLens 2.0

○ AR/Holograms give interactive 

interface

○ All interactions done with voice, hand 

and eye gestures

*NIST does not condone or sponsor the use of these brands/products
Virtual Reactor Components

● System uses 84 switches, 10 recorders, 

and 8 screens/displays

● Modelled in various 3D softwares

● Annunciators shown on panel
Component Programming

● GameObjects handled by Unity

● Displays simulated by Chart/Graph 

Software for Unity

● Interaction of each button/switch 

updates a value in CSV database to 

manage states
Programming the Simulation

● Used Microsoft Mixed Reality 

Toolkit API

● CSV Files and C# Dictionaries are 

used to map switches/buttons to 

functions & display

● Mapping matrix controls 

interaction results

○ Each switch mapped to a 

perturbation

Name States Description Unity Name Type
● Switch Instructions/Info

● Procedure Steps Listed/Timed

● Generates Report

○ Total Time

○ Total Mistakes

○ Switch/Annunciator Error 

Percentages

Educational Use
Operator Interaction

● Scenarios consist of:

○ Startup procedure

○ Fire on Console

○ SCRAM Procedure

○ Free Access

● Realtime reactor values are taken from a 

server to feed into simulation

● 1:1 Scale with Physical Movement
Personal Work

● Legacy Project Starting from 

2017/18

● Contributing work on:

○ New Models

○ Better UI

○ Bug Fixes

○ Code Organization
Future Work

● Bug Fixing

● More user friendly interface

● Higher Efficiency

● Ports to other platforms (VR or PC)
Acknowledgements

● Dr. Dagistan Sahin

● Alec Felix & Hamna Asif

● Omar Cavazos

● Kirill Stakhovsky

● CHRNS

● Internship Directors Julie Borchers & Joe Dura
Thank you.

Questions?
October 1 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GILJOY TECHNOLOGY, I NC. AND GILBERT CRUZ , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00503

- CV NO. 14

- 13

- 00573

- CV V.

THE CITY OF HOUSTON , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on June 6, 2013. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reaso n of this appeal be paid by appellant, Giljoy Technology, Inc. and Gilbert Cruz. We further order this decision certified below for observance.