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

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Michael J. Rosinski certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10QSB of Power3 Medical
   Products, Inc.;
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 quarterly report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
   information included in the this quarterly 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 in this
   quarterly report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
   establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures for the
   registrant and have:
        a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
           material information relating to the registrant, including the
           consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
           those entities, particularly during the period in which this
           quarterly 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 of this quarterly report; and
        c. Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
           effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
           our evaluation noted preceding;
5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
   our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors:
        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. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
   quarterly report whether 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.

Date:    August 17, 2004

                                        /s/ Michael J. Rosinski
                                        By: Michael J. Rosinski
                                        Title: Chief Financial Officer
```
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0786. WILLIAM DEWBERRY v. THE STATE.

In 2016, William Dewberry pled guilty to selling methamphetamine, and the

trial court imposed a sentence of two years in prison, to be followed by eight years

on probation. In May 2018, the court revoked all of Dewberry’sremaining probation

after finding that he had committed a burglary and banished him from Jones County

for the duration of his sentence. Dewberry thereafter filed a motion to modify his

sentence, which the trial court denied. He then filed this direct appeal. We lack

jurisdiction.

The underlying subject matter of an appeal controls over the relief sought in

determining the proper appellate procedure. See Rebich v. Miles, 264 Ga. 467,

467-468 (448 SE2d 192) (1994); White v. State, 233 Ga. App. 873, 874 (505 SE2d

228) (1998). The underlying subject matter here is the revocation of Dewberry’s

probation. An appeal in such a proceeding must be initiated by filing an application

for discretionary review. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (5), (b); White, 233 Ga. App. at 874. 

“Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” Smoak v.

Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996). 

Dewberry’sfailure to follow the proper procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this

direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

December 31, 2018

12/31/2018
EXHIBIT 3.1.3

                            CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION
                                       OF

                                 EKCO GROUP, LLC

     The undersigned, an authorized natural person, for the purpose of forming a
limited liability company under the provisions and subject to the requirements
of the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act, hereby certifies that:

     1.     The name of the limited liability company is EKCO Group, LLC.

     2.     The address of the limited liability company's registered office
in the State of Delaware is 1209 Orange Street, City of Wilmington, County of
New Castle, Delaware 19801. The name of the registered agent of the limited
liability company at such address required to be maintained by Section 18-104 of
the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act is The Corporation Trust Company.

     3.     This Certificate of Formation shall become effective as of
5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on January 28, 2003.

Executed as of January 27, 2003.

                                   By:  /s/ Raymond J. Kulla
                                            an Authorized Person

                                   Printed Name:  Raymond J. Kulla


<PAGE>
# C_2012013EN.01001402.xml

| 14.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2011 — LG Electronics v OHIM (DIRECT DRIVE)

(Case T-561/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark DIRECT DRIVE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character and lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 13/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 September 2010 (Case R 1027/2010-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign DIRECT DRIVE as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders LG Electronics, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.

1

---
### §§5805 to 5808. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–314, §6, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3444

Section 5805, Pub. L. 102–588, title V, §506, Nov. 4, 1992, 106 Stat. 5127, related to identification of launch support facilities.

Section 5806, Pub. L. 102–588, title V, §507, Nov. 4, 1992, 106 Stat. 5127, related to anchor tenancy and termination liability. See section 50503 of Title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs.

Section 5807, Pub. L. 102–588, title V, §508, Nov. 4, 1992, 106 Stat. 5128, related to use of Government facilities. See section 50504 of Title 51.

Section 5808, Pub. L. 102–588, title V, §510, Nov. 4, 1992, 106 Stat. 5129, related to Commercial Space Achievement Award. See section 50506 of Title 51.
# C_2013108EN.01002101.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2013 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-241/10) (1)

1

(EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - ‘Guarantee’ Section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Direct payments - Identification system for agricultural parcels - Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Lack of effectiveness and reliability - Intentional irregularities - Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004)

2013/C 108/55

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, A. Szmytkowska and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2010/152/EU of 11 March 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 63, p. 7), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Republic of Poland.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.

1

---
#### Barbara Harrington, Appellant, v Tracey Glen Toback et al., Respondents.

[825 NYS2d 118]

In an action to recover damages for podiatric malpractice and lack of informed consent, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), entered May 26, 2005, which, upon an order of the same court dated March 14, 2005, denying her motion to vacate a 90-day notice or, in the alternative, to extend the time to file a note of issue, and granting the defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216, and upon an order of the same court dated April 27, 2005, denying her motion pursuant to CPLR 3404 to restore the action to the trial calendar, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the defendants were not precluded from serving a 90-day notice upon her within one year of the date the case was stricken from the trial calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404 and the original note of issue, in effect, was stricken *(see Cascio v O’Daly,*221 AD2d 494, 495 [1995]; *see also Hansel v Lamb,*227 AD2d 838 [1996]). Once served with the 90-day notice, the plaintiff was required to comply with it by timely filing a note of issue, or by moving, before the default date, to vacate the notice or to extend the 90-day period *(see Randolph v Cornell,*29 AD3d 557 [2006]; *Die Matic Prods., Inc. v Flair Intl. Corp.,*23 AD3d 513, 514 [2005]; *Sharpe v Osorio, 21*AD3d 467, 468 [2005]; *McKinney v Corby,*295 AD2d 580, 581 [2002]). The plaintiff did not timely file the note of issue. While the plaintiff purportedly timely moved to vacate the 90-day notice or, in the alternative, to extend the time within *641which to file the note of issue, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion, especially in light of the lengthy delay in prosecuting the action, the inadequate excuse for the delay, and the prejudice to the defendants (see *Florestal v Little Flower Children’s Servs. of N.Y.,*9 AD3d 348 [2004]; *Acevedo v DePena,*6 AD3d 636 [2004]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.R, Santucci, Mastro, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 68222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26956]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List; Proposed Addition

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed addition to the procurement list.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add a service to the Procurement 
List that will be provided by a nonprofit agency employing persons who 
are blind or have other severe disabilities.
    Comments Must Be Received on Or Before: 12/14/2014.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia 22202-
4149.

For Further Information Or to Submit Comments Contact:  Barry S. 
Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email 
CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 
U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide 
interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed 
action.

Addition

    If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entity of the 
Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to 
procure the service listed below from the nonprofit agency employing 
persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
    The following service is proposed for addition to the Procurement 
List for provision by the nonprofit agency listed:

Service

Service Type/Locations: Mail Management and Support Service
    U.S. Navy, NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk, Naval Support 
Activity, 5450 Carlisle Pike, Building 112, Mechanicsburg, PA.
    U.S. Navy, NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk, Naval Support 
Activity Compounds, 700 Robbins Avenue, Building 27D, Philadelphia, 
PA
NPA: NewView Oklahoma, Inc., Oklahoma City, OK
Contracting Activity: Naval Support Fleet Logistics Center, Norfolk, 
VA

Barry S. Lineback,
Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2014-26956 Filed 11-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
```
# C_2012073EN.01001202.xml

| 10.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/12

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 December 2011 — Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Performing Science LLC

(Case C-222/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(d) - Word sign ‘5 HTP’ - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

2012/C 73/21

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Performing Science LLC

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2011 in Case T-190/09 Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Performing Science (5 HTP) relating to an action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 April 2009 (Case R 595/2008-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Performing Science LLC and Longevity Health Products, Inc. — Distinctive character of the word sign 5 HTP

Longevity Health Products

OHIM — Performing Science (5 HTP)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Longevity Health Products Inc. is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Longevity Health Products Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7319

EARL THOMAS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BENJAMIN ULEP, Medical Doctor; BENJAMIN ULEP, Individual,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:10-cv-00245-CMH-JFA)

Submitted: February 23, 2012 Decided: February 27, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earl B. Thomas, III, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Martin 

Muldowney, RAWLS & MCNELIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Earl Thomas appeals the district court’s orders

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and 

denying Thomas’ motion to amend his complaint to add new 

defendants. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. See Thomas v. Ulep, No. 1:10-cv-00245-CMH-JFA 

(E.D. Va. filed Mar. 9 & entered Mar. 10, 2011; filed Sept. 13 & 

entered Sept. 14, 2011). Further, we deny Thomas’ motion to 

compel the production of documents. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### The Union Paving Company, Respondent, v. Julian Scholl & Company, Appellant.

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, with usual leave to defendant to answer upon payment of costs of demurrer and of this appeal. Ho opinion. All concurred.
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM v. VICTOR SAN AGUSTIN, Defendant THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM v. JOHN B. MENDIOLA, Defendant

Criminal No. 22-76 Criminal No. 10F-76 Criminal No. 6F-76

Superior Court of Guam

June 24, 1976

*318ABBATE, *Judge*

DECISION

The Court is of the opinion that the search of petitioner’s house was legal inasmuch as it was conducted pursuant to a valid search warrant. Although petitioner argues that the warrant was illegal insofar as it was based on information supplied by an untested and undisclosed informant, the Court is of the opinion that this informant meets the two pronged standard established in the *Aguilar*line of cases.

The first prong of “personal knowledge” is clearly met both from the attached affidavit as well as the supporting, supplemental transcript.

The second prong, reliability of informant, although not as clearly met as the first prong, is felt by the Court to meet the basic requirement of constitutional law. In this instance, the reliability of the informant is met by the independent corroboration of the informant’s information by the police officers acting pursuant to the information given to them by this informant in the same fashion as occurred in the case of *State v. Marsden,*528 P.2d 1066. It should be noted here that in the *Marsden*case the setting was a warrantless arrest and here the search was conducted pursuant to a warrant. It has been held that in the latter setting less information is required than in the former, see *Aguilar v. Texas,*378 U.S. 1509. Although same “poisoned fruits” questions arise as to that portion of the informant’s information which in essence was corroborated pursuant to an arrest which was subsequently determined to be illegal, the Court is of the opinion that this *319instance is distinguishable from *Wong Sun v. U.S.,*37 U.S. 471 inasmuch as the “tainted” information is not being used for probable cause purposes but rather for the purpose of corroborating an informant’s information in relation to a determination of that informant’s reliability.

So ordered.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Robert W. Whitney, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 73-330;

Third District

December 23, 1974.

James Geis, of State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.

Henry D. Sintzenich, State’s Attorney, of Macomb (William Henderson, Assistant State’s Attorney, of counsel), for the People.

Opinion by

Mr. JUSTICE ALLOY.
BEFORE THEY GET BEHIND

THE WHEEL...

Make sure they understand the risks of drunk and 

drugged driving.

Let your children know it’s never okay to get behind the wheel 

of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or other 

drugs, and that getting in a car with someone who has been 

drinking or using drugs is also very dangerous. For tips on how—

and when—to begin the conversation, visit 

www.underagedrinking.samhsa.gov

#TalkTheyHearYou PEP20-03-01-064
COLUMBUS MCKINNON CORPORATION THRIFT 401(K) PLAN
                  AMENDMENT NO. 10 OF THE 1998 PLAN RESTATEMENT


        Columbus  McKinnon  Corporation  (the  "Corporation")  hereby amends the
Columbus McKinnon  Corporation  Thrift 401(K) Plan (the "Plan"),  as amended and
restated in its entirety  effective  January 1, 1998, and as further  amended by
Amendment  Nos.  1through 9, as permitted  under  Section  14.1 of the Plan,  as
follows:

        1.     Section  3.2,  entitled  "Matching  Contributions",   is  amended
effective July 1, 2003 by changing Section 3.2(b) to read as follows:

        (B)    AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION.  THE MATCHING CONTRIBUTION REQUIRED TO BE
MADE ON BEHALF OF AN EMPLOYEE  UNDER  SECTION (A) SHALL BE AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 25
PERCENT OF THE SALARY  REDUCTION  CONTRIBUTIONS  MADE ON BEHALF OF THE  EMPLOYEE
DURING THE PLAN YEAR PROVIDED,  HOWEVER,  THAT MATCHING  CONTRIBUTIONS SHALL NOT
EXCEED 1.5 PERCENT OF THE EMPLOYEE'S BASE PAY FOR THE PLAN YEAR.

        2.     Section  3.2,   entitled  "Matching  Contributions",  is  amended
effective April 1, 2004 by changing Section 3.2(f) to read as follows:

        (F)    SUSPENSION OF MATCHING CONTRIBUTIONS. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO
THE  CONTRARY IN THIS SECTION  3.2, NO MATCHING  CONTRIBUTIONS  SHALL BE MADE ON
ACCOUNT OF SALARY REDUCTION  CONTRIBUTIONS THAT ARE MADE WITH RESPECT TO PAYROLL
PERIODS   BEGINNING   ON  OR  AFTER  MAY  1,  2003  AND  BEFORE  JULY  1,  2004.
NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN THIS SECTION 3.2, BASE PAY EARNED BY
A  PARTICIPANT  ON AND AFTER MAY 1, 2003 AND  BEFORE  JULY 1, 2004  SHALL NOT BE
TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING  THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF MATCHING  CONTRIBUTIONS
MADE ON BEHALF OF THE PARTICIPANT DURING ANY PLAN YEAR.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  this instrument of amendment has been executed by a
duly authorized officer of the Corporation this 12th day of July, 2004.


                                       COLUMBUS McKINNON CORPORATION

                                       By: /S/ ROBERT MYERS
                                           -------------------------------------

                                       Title: VICE PRESIDENT - HUMAN RESOURCES
                                              ----------------------------------