alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31(b)


                                  CERTIFICATION

     I, John D. Stanton, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of Nanobac
Pharmaceuticals, Incorporated;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respect the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.

     4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, is made known to me by others,
particularly during the period in which this annual 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 annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

     5. 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 functions):

     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. I have indicated in this annual 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.


March 31, 2004
                                        By: /s/ John D. Stanton
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        John D. Stanton, Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Scott
Scherr, Chief Executive Officer of The Ultimate Software Group, Inc., hereby
certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that this Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that the
information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly represents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
The Ultimate Software Group, Inc.











/s/ Scott ScherrScott
      ScherrChief
      Executive OfficerNovember
      9, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         318,628
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 39,181,888
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,483,863
<PP&E>                                         749,726
<DEPRECIATION>                                (246,806)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,446,861
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       33,350,895
<BONDS>                                      3,970,236
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,603
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,087,127
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,446,861
<SALES>                                     55,419,763
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            55,864,218
<CGS>                                       51,743,605
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               56,093,246
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,841,054
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              98,197
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,168,279)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,168,279)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,168,279)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.82)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Donroy MERRIVAL, Jr., Appellant, v. John GLEASON, Deputy; Will Souer, Deputy; Matt Hendricks, Deputy; James Waldschmidt, Lt., Appellees.

No. 10-3379.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 30, 2011.

Filed: July 6, 2011.

Donroy Merrival, Jr., Fort Madison, IA, pro se.

Andrew Chappell, Susan D. Nehring. Assistant County Attorney, Iowa City, IA, for Appellees.

Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

*647PER CURIAM.

Donroy Merrival, Jr., appeals the district court’s1 order granting judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We find no basis, and Merrival has provided none, for overturning the district court’s well-reasoned decision. *See Schaub v. VonWald,*638 F.3d 905, 923 (8th Cir.2011) (standard of review).2 Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Ross A. Walters, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

2

. We decline to consider the documents not presented below, as well as the allegations or arguments that Merrival raises for the first time on appeal or in his reply brief.
**Exhibit 11**                           **Computations of Earnings Per Common Share**   **2004**  **2005**   **Net**      **Per Share**  **Net**      **Per Share**   **Loss**  **Shares**  **Amount**  **Loss**  **Shares**  **Amount**   **(in thousands, except per share data)** Basic EPS                        Net loss available to common shareholders $(1,554)  24,275  $(0.06) $(2,746)  24,418  $(0.11)                     Effect of Dilutive Securities                        Stock option plans      —           —                            Dilutive EPS                        Net loss available to commonshareholders and assumed conversions $(1,554)  24,275  $(0.06) $(2,746)  24,418  $(0.11)                   
     NOTE: Options to purchase 4.2 million and 3.5 million shares of Class A Common Stock wereoutstanding during the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2005, respectively, but were notincluded in the computation of diluted earnings per share because the effect would have beenanti-dilutive.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

______________ No. 96-1800

______________ JAMES J. O'CONNELL, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND; CLARENCE EDWARDS, Chief of Police, Defendants - Appellees.

______________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA93-733-PJM)

______________ Argued: July 16, 1997 Decided: November 24, 1997

______________ Before MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge, BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge, and FOX, Chief United States District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.

______________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

______________ ARGUED: Lori Elizabeth Kline, JACOBS, JACOBS & FARBER, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Bruce P. Sherman, Senior Assistant County Attorney, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Mindy G. Farber, Jack D. Isaacs, JACOBS, JACOBS & FARBER, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Charles W. Thompson, Jr., County Attorney, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

______________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM: Appellant James J. O'Connell appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Article 27, § 733 of the Maryland Code , "The Law Enforcement Officer's Bill of Rights." O'Connell claimed his civil rights were violated by histransfers within the Montgomery County, Maryland, Police Department, allegedly in retaliation for his invocation of his First Amendment rights. His Complaint sought reinstatement, injunctive relief and compensatory, as well as punitive damages. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion,and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. O'Connell v. Montgomery County, Maryland, No. CA-PJM-93-733 (D. Md. April 30, 1996).

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 10.7B**

**AMENDMENT TWO**

**ALABAMA NATIONAL BANCORPORATION**

**PLAN FOR THE DEFERRAL OF COMPENSATION**

**BY KEY EMPLOYEES**

This Amendment Two to the Alabama National BanCorporation Plan for the Deferral of Compensation by KeyEmployees is hereby made as of this 30th day of December, 2005, by Alabama National BanCorporation. 

**WITNESSETH:**

**WHEREAS**,the Board of Directors and the stockholders of Alabama National BanCorporation (the “Employer”) have previously adopted and approved the Alabama National BanCorporation Plan For the Deferral of Compensation by Key Employees (the“Plan”); 

**WHEREAS**, pursuant to duly adopted resolutions, the Board of Directors of the Employer has elected to adopt anamendment (the “Amendment”) to the Plan in order to ensure that amounts deferred under the Plan and allocated as a share allotment are not required to be classified as a liability of the Employer pursuant to Financial Accounting StandardsBoard Statement 123 (revised 2004), *Share-Based Payment* (“FAS 123(R)”); and 

**WHEREAS**, the Employer and theParticipants now desire to amend the Plan in accordance Section 9(d) and in accordance with the foregoing. 

**NOW, THEREFORE,**thePlan is hereby amended as follows: 

1. Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined herein have the respectivemeanings assigned to such terms in the Plan. 

2. Effective January 1, 2006, Section 7(c) of the Plan is amended by deleting theexisting language therein in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following: 

“(c) Distribution shall be in accordance withSections 6(b), 6(c), 6(d) and 6(e) above, except that distribution of stock equivalents in the Account shall be made, as determined by the Continuing Directors, in either (i) shares of Common Stock in accordance with the provisions ofSection 5(c)(iii), or (ii) in cash in an amount equal to the number of stock equivalents to be distributed multiplied by the greater of (i) the Average Closing Price of the Common Stock for the twenty (20) trading days ending onthe day preceding the date on which the right to such distribution arose; (ii) the Average Closing Price of the Common Stock for the twenty (20) trading days ending on the day preceding the date of the Change in Control; or (iii) thehighest price per share of Common Stock in the transaction or series of transactions constituting the Change in Control.” 

3. Allother terms, conditions, and provisions of the Plan not herein modified shall remain in full force and effect. 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the Employer has caused this Amendment Two to the Alabama NationalBanCorporation Plan for the Deferral of Compensation by Key Employees to be executed by its duly authorized officer and to be consented to by each of the current Participants as of the date first written above. 

 
**ALABAMA NATIONAL BANCORPORATION**(Employer)By: 
/s/ John H. Holcomb III

Its:
 
Chairman of the Board

 

- 2 -
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                          20,007
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  178,505
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (6,140)
<INVENTORY>                                    185,613
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               400,226
<PP&E>                                         302,632
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,422
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,454,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          356,069
<BONDS>                                        526,368
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,056
<OTHER-SE>                                     337,365
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,454,463
<SALES>                                        781,865
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               781,865
<CGS>                                          414,645
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  729,252
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,962
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 32,968
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,342
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,626
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,626
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

TOMAS PERAZA, Jr.,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 50198

D.C. No. 3:16

- cr

- 02633

- LAB

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2021 * *

Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.

Tomas Peraza, Jr.

, appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 1 2

- month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release . We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm

.

Peraza contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 50198

consider the statutory sentencing factors and his arguments regarding his mental

health , and by failing to explain the sentence adequately . We review for plain

error, see United States v. Valencia

- Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.

2010) , and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court

considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and Peraza’s arguments for

a lower sentence , and thoroughly explained its determination that the within

Guidelines sentence was warranted in light of Peraza’s significant breach of the

court’s trust

. See United States v. Carty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en

banc) ; see also United States v. Simto b , 485 F.3d 1058 , 1062 (9th Cir. 2007)

( primary purpose of revocation sentence is to sanction the defendant’s breach of

the court’s trust). Moreover, contrary to Peraza’s contention, t he sentence is

substantively reasonable in light of the § 3583(e) facto rs and the totality of the

circumstances, including Peraza’s criminal history. See Gall v. United States , 552

U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


        STATEMENT REQUIRED BY U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of PCB Bancorp, Inc.,
(the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Phillip
R. Carriger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, David LeVeau, Senior
Accounting Officer, certify that


         -        the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
         -        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                  material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.






/s/    Phillip R. Carriger
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Phillip R. Carriger, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
    5/12/03


/s/    David LeVeau
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    David LeVeau, Senior Accounting Officer
    5/12/03




                                       16
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of SRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), ThomasC.K. Yuen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

 

1.                                       The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  November 4, 2010 |   |                     |
|------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                         |   | By:                      | /s/  Thomas C.K. Yuen |
|                         |   | Thomas  C.K. Yuen        |
|                         |   | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                                       OF
                        PAINEWEBBER/GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME
                            LIMITED PARTNERSHIP III-D


       The undersigned  General Partner hereby duly executes this Certificate of
Limited  Partnership of  PaineWebber/Geodyne  Energy Income Limited  Partnership
III-D (the  "Partnership"),  which is being filed with the Secretary of State of
Oklahoma in accordance with the Oklahoma  Revised  Uniform  Limited  Partnership
Act.

       1.    The name of the Partnership is PaineWebber/Geodyne  Energy Income
Limited Partnership III-D.

       2. The address of the registered  office of the  Partnership is 320 South
Boston,  The Mezzanine,  Tulsa,  Oklahoma 74103,  and the name of the registered
agent whose business  office  address will be the same as the registered  office
address is Geodyne Production Company.

       3. The address of the principal  office of the  Partnership in the United
States  where its  partnership  records are to be kept or made  available is c/o
Geodyne  Production  Company,  320 South Boston Avenue,  the  Mezzanine,  Tulsa,
Oklahoma 74103-3708.

       4. The name,  the mailing  address and the street address of the business
or residence of each general partner of the Partnership are as follows:

Name                      Mailing Address            Business Address
----                      ---------------            ----------------
Geodyne Production        320 S. Boston Ave.         320 S. Boston Ave.
Company                   The Mezzanine              The Mezzanine
                          Tulsa, OK 74103-3708       Tulsa, 0K 74103-3708

       5.    The latest  date upon which the  Partnership  is to  dissolve  is
September 5, 2010.

       SIGNED on this 5th day of September, 1990.


                                         GENERAL PARTNER:

                                         Geodyne Production Company
                                         a Delaware corporation

                                         By: /s/ Michael E. Luttrell
                                             -----------------------
                                             Michael E. Luttrell
                                             Executive Vice President
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code)
  (a)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended
September 30, 2004 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
 November 22, 2005
    
    /s/ Charles R. WaldronCharles R. WaldronSenior Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer and Treasurer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark Bliss, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 461]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.), rendered July 19, 1995, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, and operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant seeks to have his conviction for criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree dismissed on the ground that it is an inclusory concurrent count of the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree *(see,*CPL 300.40 [3] [b]). However, his plea of guilty forecloses him from raising this claim *(see, People v Walton,*41 NY2d 880).

There is no indication in the record that the defendant applied at the conclusion of his term of imprisonment for resentencing pursuant to CPL 420.10 (5) on the basis that payment of the mandatory surcharge would “work an unreasonable hardship” (CPL 420.35). Therefore, the defendant’s claim that the mandatory surcharge should be waived is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Teele,*157 AD2d 592; *People*
      *460
      *v Carlton,*133 AD2d 776). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.