alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>




                                                                    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 Annual Report of Digital Descriptor Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the Company.





                                                  /s/ Michael J. Pellegrino
                                                  -------------------------
                                                  Michael J. Pellegrino
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                                  April 15, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AS OF AND FOR
THE THIRTY-NINE WEEK PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<CASH>                                         283,434
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  147,196
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (20,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    375,339
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,057,766
<PP&E>                                       9,133,380
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,432,390
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,809,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,753,029
<BONDS>                                         28,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,675
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,650,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,809,212
<SALES>                                     14,602,482
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,718,258
<CGS>                                        5,192,535
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,300,766
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,374,197
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,900
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             107,860
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,068,465)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,068,465)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,068,465)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.09)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,524
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               3
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 9,126
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     18,118
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             601
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               603
<LOANS>                                         69,574
<ALLOWANCE>                                        870
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,343
<DEPOSITS>                                      95,471
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                 68
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           806
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,697
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 104,343
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,498
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  666
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   211
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,375
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,815
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,815
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,560
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       71
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  11
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,981
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    756
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         756
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       509
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .64
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.37
<LOANS-NON>                                        306
<LOANS-PAST>                                         6
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    293
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   826
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       56
<RECOVERIES>                                         4
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  870
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            870


</TABLE>
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



In connection with the Annual Report of Alabama National BanCorporation (Alabama National) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), John H. Holcomb, III, Chief Executive Officer of Alabama National, and William E. Matthews, V, Chief Financial Officer of Alabama National, each
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 results of operations of Alabama National.



Dated: March 15, 2005



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ John H. Holcomb, III  
|John H. Holcomb, III      
|Chief Executive Officer   
|                          
|/s/ William E. Matthews, V
|William E. Matthews, V    
|Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AS OF APRIL 25, 1999 AND APRIL 26, 1998 (AUDITED)
AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AS OF APRIL 25, 1999 AND
APRIL 26, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000926295
<NAME> BOSTON RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-25-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                       1,863,299
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,121
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    214,657
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,161,162
<PP&E>                                       6,023,575<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,887,694
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,116,875
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        70,602
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,922,636
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,887,694
<SALES>                                     12,153,934
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,173,934
<CGS>                                        2,546,026
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,911,421
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             313,986
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    59,636
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
<FN>
<F1>PLEASE NOTE: PP&E DOES NOT INCLUDE ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Terrence Lamont Pease, Respondent, v Amber Marie Gray, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 589]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Martha E. Mulroy, A.J.), entered September 14, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded petitioner sole legal and residential custody of the subject child.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2964 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2964

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow refunds of Federal 
 motor fuel excise taxes on fuels used in mobile mammography vehicles.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 19, 2009

   Mr. Heller (for himself, Ms. Bean, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Thompson of 
   Mississippi, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Cao, Mr. Reichert, Mr. Hastings of 
  Florida, and Mr. Austria) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow refunds of Federal 
 motor fuel excise taxes on fuels used in mobile mammography vehicles.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Mobile Mammography Promotion Act of 
2009''.

SEC. 2. REFUNDS OF FEDERAL MOTOR FUEL EXCISE TAXES FOR FUEL USED IN 
              MOBILE MAMMOGRAPHY VEHICLES.

    (a) Refunds.--Section 6427 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to fuels not used for taxable purposes) is amended by 
inserting after subsection (f) the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Fuels Used in Mobile Mammography Vehicles.--Except as 
provided in subsection (k), if any fuel on which tax was imposed by 
section 4041 or 4081 is used in any highway vehicle designed 
exclusively to provide mobile mammography services to patients within 
such vehicle, the Secretary shall pay (without interest) to the 
ultimate purchaser of such fuel an amount equal to the aggregate amount 
of the tax imposed on such fuel.''.
    (b) Exemption From Retail Tax.--Section 4041 of such Code is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(n) Fuels Used in Mobile Mammography Vehicles.--No tax shall be 
imposed under this section on any liquid sold for use in, or used in, 
any highway vehicle designed exclusively to provide mobile mammography 
services to patients within such vehicle.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH

#### Staylor v. City of Virginia Beach and Matson

June 28, 1984

Case No. (Law) 13,250

By JUDGE AUSTIN E. OWEN

You will recall that on May 18, 1984, the defendants’ pleas of Sovereign Immunity were argued before me and the decision taken under advisement.

On May 18, 1984, counsel stipulated that in ruling upon these pleas the Court could accept as proven fact that the defendant, Matson, on the date and at the time mentioned in the Motion for Judgment was a Virginia Beach Police Officer and was on duty and engaged in the enforcement of traffic laws.

The liability alleged against the City of Virginia Beach in the Motion for Judgment is solely that arising under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior, and the City contends, and the Court agrees, that in maintaining a police force the City is engaged in a governmental function; a function of the State itself which the City to some extent is called upon to perform. See e.g., *Burch*v. *Hardwicke,*71 Va. 24 (1878); *Winchester*v. *Redmond,*93 Va. 711 (1896); *Lambert*v. *Barrett,*115 Va. 136 (1913); and *Hoggard v. Richmond,*172 Va. 145 (1939).

As to the defendant, City of Virginia Beach, the Court is of the opinion that the City enjoys sovereign immunity and upon presentation of an appropriate order it will be dismissed as a party defendant to this action.

*135With respect to the defendant, Matson, the allegations and the stipulated facts do not permit a finding at this point that he enjoys a similar immunity. While one cannot but admit a certain difficulty in distinguishing the holdings in various cases, it does seem clear that public officers, including police officers, are liable for injuries resulting from their negligence in the performance of duties which do not involve substantial judgment or discretion and are, thus, denominated as ministerial. See e.g., *Sawyer*v. Corse, 58 Va. (17 Gratt.) 230 (1867); *Wynn*v. Gandy, 170 Va. 590 (1938); and *Banks*v. *Sellers,*224 Va. 168 (1982).

In *Banks*v. *Sellers,*the majority reviews the factors to be considered in deciding where the lines of immunity shall be drawn, and would seem to suggest that an employee of an immune employer will be granted immunity only if he is a supervisory official or otherwise in a position requiring the exercise of a considerable degree of judgment and discretion.

As to the defendant, Matson, the Court will overrule the plea of sovereign immunity at this time, reserving to that defendant the right to renew his plea should the evidence at trial indicate that his duties required the exercise of such a degree of judgment and discretion as to afford him immunity.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jesus VARGAS-CALDERON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 10-13202

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 1, 2011.

James R. McHenry, III, Randall W. Duncan, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, Sally Yates, United States Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kendal D. Silas, Stephanie Kearns, Federal Defender Program, Inc, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

*949PER CURIAM:

Jesus Vargas-Calderon appeals his 70-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a previously deported alien who unlawfully re-entered the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). On appeal, Vargas-Calderon argues his sentence is excessive and unreasonable in light of both the record and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. He asserts his sentence fails to account for the mitigating aspects of his history and personal characteristics. Specifically, Vargas-Calderon contends his sentence is unreasonable because six of his twelve criminal history points were attributable to crimes he committed when he was seventeen, thus his sentence was unduly influenced by his youthful indiscretions.

We review sentences for reasonableness, using an abuse-of-discretion standard. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). When evaluating the “substantive reasonableness” of a sentence, we consider the totality of the circumstances. *Id.*On appeal, the party challenging the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable. *United States v. Talley,*431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam). We determine whether the sentence is substantively reasonable based on the factors in section 3553(a), and we ordinarily expect a within-guidelines sentence to be reasonable. *Id.*We will only vacate a sentence if we determine that “after giving a full measure of deference to the sentencing judge, that the sentence imposed truly is unreasonable.” *United States v. Irey,*612 F.3d 1160, 1191 (11th Cir.2010) (en banc), *petition for cert. filed,*79 U.S.L.W. 3361 (U.S. Nov. 24, 2010) (No. 10-727).

The parties dispute the applicable guidelines range — the government argues the 70 month sentence is a below-guidelines variance, and Vargas-Calderon argues it is at the low-end of the applicable guidelines range. Either way, Vargas-Calderon’s sentence is substantively reasonable. First, Vargas-Calderon’s sentence was well below the statutory maximum of 20 years. *See, e.g., United States v. Valnor,*451 F.3d 744, 751-52 (11th Cir.2006) (upholding a sentence as reasonable in part because it was “appreciably below” the statutory maximum). Second, the sentence correctly reflects Vargas-Calderon’s multiple illegal reentries into the United States and his multiple convictions for driving under the influence. The district court considered Vargas-Calderon’s arguments regarding his age and work history in fashioning the sentence. Vargas-Calderon has not met his burden to show that the district court abused its discretion, so we affirm.

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-40207 

Conference Calendar

__________________

JAMES WOODALL,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

 Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-95-CV-275

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Woodall, #443580, appeals from the district court's

denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Woodall argues that trial counsel was ineffective

for 1) failing to object to the ethnic composition of the jury

panel, 2) failing to investigate the case adequately, and

3) failing to object at trial when the prosecutor questioned
No. 96-40207

-2-

state witnesses concerning Woodall’s state of mind. We have

reviewed the record and briefs and find no reversible error. 

Counsel’s performance was not ineffective. See Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689-94 (1984). 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
     I, Joseph R. Sandoval, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of R&G FinancialCorporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 15, 2004   /s/ JOSEPH R. SANDOVALJoseph R. Sandoval