alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-15(e) OR 15d-15(e) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Matthew P. Dwyer, certify that:





1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Total Identity Corp.;





2.  Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;





3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:





a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information 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 which this report is being prepared;





b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, 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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and;





5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.





December 17, 2004





By:/s/ Matthew P. DwyerChairman, Principal Executive Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6565** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. NEIL CALVIN JOHNSON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Distric t of South Carolina , at Florence
. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:07

- cr - 00900

- RBH

- 1; 4:10

- cv - 70246

- RBH )

Submitted : July 28, 2011 Decided: August 2, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opin ion
. Neil Calvin Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Neil Calvin Johnson seeks t o appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate o f appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on pro cedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the r ecord and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the mate rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

#### Kirkpatrick et al. v. Cafferty et al.

October 21, 1985

Case No. (Chancery) 92023

By JUDGE F. BRUCE BACH

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Katz’s Demurrer and Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants Cafferty, Perry and Post Trail Partnership’s (hereinafter "Cafferty") Demurrer and Plaintiffs’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. After hearing argument of counsel and reviewing the memoranda and authorities, it is the opinion of the Court that the Demurrers are overruled, Defendant Katz’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied and Plaintiffs’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

Section 50-26 of the Code of Virginia states that a general partnership interest is to be classified as personal property. Section 50-61 of the Code of Virginia states that a limited partnership interest is to be classified as personal property. Consequently, the applicable statute of frauds is contained in Va. Code § 8.1-206 and not Va. Code § 11-2.

The $5,000 limit on recoveries based on oral contracts does not apply where there is:

> [sjome writing which indicates that a contract for sale has been made between the parties at a defined or stated price, reasonably identifies the subject matter, and is signed by the *247party against whom enforcement is sought. Va. Code, § 8.1-206(1).

In the present case, the letter dated December 10, 1984, from Defendant Katz to Plaintiffs satisfies the "some writing" requirement of Va. Code Section 8.1-206(1). The letter is signed by the party to be charged, Katz, it identifies the subject matter, Katz’s interest in the partnership, and it indicates that an agreement was made between Defendant Katz and Plaintiffs.

While neither defendant has specifically raised the issue, it appears to the Court the Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law in the form of quantifiable damages. This was strictly a business agreement between Defendant Katz and Plaintiffs for the sale of Katz’s personal property. These circumstances do not necessarily call for the extraordinary remedy of specific performance. Furthermore, there is a strong policy against forcing obviously antagonistic parties to become partners.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby granted and Defendant Katz’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby denied. The Court’s granting of Plaintiffs’ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is limited to a ruling that the statute of frauds does not preclude or limit Plaintiffs’ right to recover nor does it preclude Defendant’s right to defend on all other issues. In light of the Court’s rulings as to the Motions for Summary Judgment, the Demurrers are hereby overruled.
Exhibit 99.1Agreement Regarding Disclosure of Long-Term Debt Instruments     In reliance upon Item 601(b)(4)(iii)(A) of Regulation S-K, AIMCO Properties, L.P., a Delawarelimited partnership (the “Partnership”), has not filed as an exhibit to its Annual Report on Form10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007, any instrument with respect to long-term debt notbeing registered where the total amount of securities authorized thereunder does not exceed tenpercent of the total assets of the Partnership and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis.Pursuant to Item 601(b)(4)(iii)(A) of Regulation S-K, the Partnership hereby agrees to furnish acopy of any such agreement to the Securities Exchange Commission upon request.      AIMCO Properties, L.P.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.3

                            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 National Property Analysts Master
Limited Partnership ("NPAMLP") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, David A. Simon, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
EBL&S Property Management, Inc., Agent for NPAMLP and the equivalent of its
Chief Financial Officer 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) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NPAMLP.

                                     National Property Analysts Master Limited
                                     Partnership
                                     (Registrant)

                                     Date: March 30, 2007


                                     By: EBL&S Property Management, Inc., Agent
                                         for NPAMLP


                                     By: /s/ David A. Simon
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                     Name: David A. Simon
                                     Title: Vice President
EX-32.2

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                          PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In  connection  with the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-QSB  (the
"Report") of WI-TRON, INC. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2006,
I, Jessica Lee, Chief Financial Officer and Principal  Accounting Officer of the
Company,  hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  to the best of my knowledge
and belief, 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/ Jessica Lee                                                     May 19, 2006
-----------------------
Jessica Lee,
Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ERIC KENNETH JONES,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 580 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of February, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                [ELLIOTT, DAVIS & COMPANY, L.L.P. APPEARS HERE]

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 333-3628) pertaining to the 1987 Stock Option Plan and the 1995
Stock Option Plan of Union Financial Bancshares, Inc. and in the Registration on
Form S-3 (No. 333-35319) pertaining to the Dividend and Stock Purchase Plan of
Union Financial Bancshares, Inc. of our report dated October 29, 1999, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Union Financial Bancshares,
Inc. and subsidiary incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-
KSB for the year ended September 30, 1999.



                              /s/ Elliott, Davis & Company, L.L.P.


December 20, 1999
Greenville, South Carolina
Exhibit 32.1



DIVALL INCOME PROPERTIES 3 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP



Certification of Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of DiVall Income Properties 3 Limited Partnership (the Company) certifies
that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                |  |                                        |  |                                       
|--------------- |  | -------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|                |  | THE PROVO GROUP, INC., General Partner
|                |  |                                       
|Dated: 11/22/04 |  | By                                     |  | /s/ Bruce A. Provo                    
|                |  |                                        |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and
|                |  |                                        |  | Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10474

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JORGE RIZO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CR-179-2

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jorge Rizo has moved for leave to

withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Rizo has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record

and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 12, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK

#### First & Merchants National Bank v. E. John Huxtable, Jr.

March 10, 1981

Case No. (Law) L-81-89

By JUDGE EDWARD L. RYAN, JR.

The current question for decision is plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider the late ruling requiring plaintiff to assume or reimburse defendant’s expenses from Arizona for attending oral discovery demanded by plaintiff.

You have been advised that the uniform ruling of the judges of this court has been that ordinarily the moving party should pay such expenses. But plaintiff has shown that defendant was recently in this state and could have made himself available for the discovery request then outstanding.

The general rule in both Federal and State courts is that such expenses will be allowed ordinarily against the moving party. 23 Am. Jur. 2d, *Depositions & Discovery,*Sect. 250, 281.

All of the foregoing is subject to the court’s discretion in granting or refusing requests, bearing in mind the rule of reason and the circumstances and facts of each case. The court concludes that the defendant should have made himself available for discovery and that it would not be equitable to now impose travel expenses on the plaintiff.

Defendant should promptly make himself available for oral discovery in Norfolk or face the consequences of the Rule of Court on sanctions.
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of China Titanium and Chemical Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michel Bourbonnais, President and Principal Accounting Officer, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  April 16, 2007

By: /s/ Michel Bourbonnais

Name: Michel Bourbonnais

Title:   President (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 32

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") of
PYR Energy Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended February 28, 2005,
D. Scott Singdahlsen, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of the undersigned's 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
Company.



Date:  April 14, 2005                           /s/ D. Scott Singdahlsen
                                                --------------------------------
                                                D. Scott Singdahlsen
                                                Chief Financial Officer
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

OPTOLUM, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CREE, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1511

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of North Carolina in No. 1:17-cv-00687-

WO-JLW, Judge William L. Osteen, Jr.

______________________ 

Decided: June 12, 2023

______________________ 

LEIGH JOHN MARTINSON, McCarter & English, LLP, 

Boston, MA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by LEAH R. MCCOY; JACOB STEVEN WHARTON, Womble Bond Dickinson LLP, Winston-Salem, NC.

 BLANEY HARPER, Jones Day, Washington, DC, argued 

for defendant-appellee. Also represented by EDWIN 

GARCIA; PETER DANIEL SIDDOWAY, Sage Patent Group, Raleigh, NC.

______________________ 

Case: 22-1511 Document: 36 Page: 1 Filed: 06/12/2023
2 OPTOLUM, INC. v. CREE, INC. 

Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

OptoLum, Inc. (“OptoLum”) asks us to reverse a district court decision finding prosecution history disclaimer 

and estoppel, in addition to excluding certain expert testimony. Although there is room for debate regarding the 

statements made during prosecution that sit at the core of 

this case, prosecution history disclaimer and estoppel are 

legal questions on which we agree with the district court. 

We have considered OptoLum’s remaining arguments but 

find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district court is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 22-1511 Document: 36 Page: 2 Filed: 06/12/2023
EXHIBIT 99.2



	The following certification is provided by the undersigned as Chief
Financial Officer of Industri-Matematik International Corp. on the basis
of such officer's knowledge and belief for the sole purpose of complying
with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

                          CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Industri-Matematik
International Corp. ("Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 16,
2002 ("Report"), I, Susan Salvesen, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 1     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
       15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 periods indicated.


/s/ Susan Salvesen
--------------------------
Name: Susan Salvesen
Title: Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
Date: December 16, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                              5                               
<MULTIPLIER>                           1
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                 MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                        11,306,705 
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                    855,111
<ALLOWANCES>                     250,000
<INVENTORY>                       22,228
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              12,828,139
<PP&E>                        34,647,973
<DEPRECIATION>                 4,130,816
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               144,904,713
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         12,491,585
<BONDS>                      118,327,202
<COMMON>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                    14,085,926
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 144,904,713
<SALES>                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              24,232,792
<CGS>                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 21,937,529
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 250,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             3,669,958
<INCOME-PRETAX>                2,295,263
<INCOME-TAX>                           0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            2,295,263 
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                  (1,276,765)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0  
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Innkeepers USA Trust (the Company) for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Jeffrey H. Fisher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 8, 2006



/s/ Jeffrey H. FisherJeffrey H. Fisher Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President