alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert O. Carr, certify that:

1.          I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.          The registrant’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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions 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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

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 registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’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 registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 7, 2006

|   | /s/  Robert O. Carr  |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   |                           |
|   | Robert O.   Carr          |
|   | Chief   Executive Officer |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-22945-SCOLA

MINUTES FOR CIVIL JURY TRIAL

DAY 5 – Monday, March 6, 2023

CARNIVAL CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, 

VS. 

DeCURTIS CORPORATION,

DeCURTIS LLC.,

Defendants.

Counsel for Plaintiff: Steve Routh, Laura Najemy, Sheryl Garko, Roberto Uriarte, David Perrott, 

and Diana Fassbender.

Counsel for Defendants: Nicholas Groombridge, Jennifer Wu, Adam Schwartz, Daniel Klein,

and Geri Fischman.

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

COURT REPORTER: Sharon Pell-Velazco

MISCELLANEOUS: 

• Jury trial held. 

• Plaintiff’s witnesses sworn and testified: Douglas Steele, and Erik de la Iglesia.

• Jury trial recessed at 5:50 p.m. and will resume at 9:10 a.m. on Tuesday, March 7, 2023. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 550 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/06/2023 Page 1 of 1
1

Case Number:___20-CV- 22719-MGC 

ANDRES GOMEZ,

 Plaintiff

V.

TRUEWAY INSURANCE CORP., 

Defendant

________________________________/

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH JUDICIAL ORDER [DE #5]

I hereby certify that the requirements set forth in the Order of Court Practices and Procedures has 

been complied with to the best of my knowledge and ability.

Dated: July 17, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,

/ s / A l b e r t o R . L e al

Alberto R. Leal 

Florida Bar No.: 1002345 

The Leal Law Firm, P.A. 

8927 Hypoluxo Rd. #157

Lake Worth, FL 33463 

Phone:561-237-2740 

Facsimile: 561-237-2741 

E-Mail:al@thelealfirm.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:20-cv-22719-MGC Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 1 of 1
### §1431. Assistance by corporation

#### (a) Authority; procedure applicable; amount

If, upon receipt of an application for financial assistance under section 1426(f) of this title or section 1441(d) of this title, the corporation verifies that the plan is or will be insolvent and unable to pay basic benefits when due, the corporation shall provide the plan financial assistance in an amount sufficient to enable the plan to pay basic benefits under the plan.

#### (b) Conditions; repayment terms

(1) Financial assistance shall be provided under such conditions as the corporation determines are equitable and are appropriate to prevent unreasonable loss to the corporation with respect to the plan.

(2) A plan which has received financial assistance shall repay the amount of such assistance to the corporation on reasonable terms consistent with regulations prescribed by the corporation.

#### (c) Assistance pending final determination of application

Pending determination of the amount described in subsection (a), the corporation may provide financial assistance in such amounts as it considers appropriate in order to avoid undue hardship to plan participants and beneficiaries.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title IV, §4261, as added Pub. L. 96–364, title I, §104(2), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1261.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Effective Date

Part effective Sept. 26, 1980, except as specifically provided, see section 1461(e) of this title.
----

Action brought on 9 November 2005 — Investire Partecipazioni v Commission

(Case T-418/05)

(2006/C 22/39)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant(s): Investire Partecipazioni S.p.A. (Italy) (represented by: Gian Michele Roberti and Alessandra Franchi)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application concerns assistance from a venture-capital fund for an undertaking (Sys S.p.A.) to enable the latter to make an investment in an area which is eligible under objective 2. By its application, the applicant Investire Partecipazioni S.p.A. asks the Court of First Instance to annul the Commission decision of 11 August 2005, file No 08405, concerning the Commission's final position on financial corrections for the purposes of Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1) in relation to Measure 1.5 of the Piedmont SPD, objective 2 (1997 — 1999) — venture-capital fund for an investment in the company Sys S.p.A. — and of the supplementary decision of 23 August 2005, file No 08720. It follows from those two decisions that the ineligible Community contribution was EUR 542 277.6, corresponding to the Community participation in the venture-capital fund contribution to the undertaking Sys S.p.A.

In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

----

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ L 374 of 31.12.1988, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Decision (97/322/EC) of 23 April 1997 modifying the decisions approving the Community support frameworks, the single programming documents and the Community initiative programmes in respect of Italy (OJ L 146 of 5.6.1997, p. 11).

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 21-cr-20172-GAYLES/TORRES

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLEVON WEBSTER,

Defendant. 

_________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Clevon Webster’s Motion to Dismiss 

(the “Motion”). [ECF No. 45]. The Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Edwin G Torres for 

a Report and Recommendation. [ECF No. 46]. On December 16, 2021, Judge Torres issued his 

report recommending that the Court deny the Motion to Dismiss (the “Report”). [ECF No. 52]. On 

December 30, 2021, Defendant filed objections to the Report. [ECF No. 53].

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which 

objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings 

that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see 

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific 

objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint 

Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 

208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). 

Case 1:20-cr-20172-DPG Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/03/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record and agrees with Judge Torres’s 

well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Motion should be denied. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

(1) Judge Torres’s Report [ECF No. 52] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference; and

(2) Defendant Clevon Webster’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 45] is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 3rd day of January, 2022. 

________________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cr-20172-DPG Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/03/2022 Page 2 of 2
### §956. Powers and duties of clerks and deputies

The clerk of each court and his deputies and assistants shall exercise the powers and perform the duties assigned to them by the court.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 926.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§221, 244, 304 and 305 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§124, 139, 191, 192, 36 Stat. 1132, 1136, 1144; June 16, 1930, ch. 494, 46 Stat. 589).

This section contains only a part of sections 221, 244, 304 and 305 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed. The other provisions of such sections are incorporated in sections 604, 711, 831, 833, 834, 957 and 1926 of this title.

Sections 221, 244, 304 and 305 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., related to the clerks of the circuit courts of appeals, the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

The phrase "assigned to them by the court" was substituted for the indefinite provision of section 221 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., that the clerk of each circuit court of appeals "shall exercise the same powers and perform the same duties * * * as are exercised and performed by the clerk of the Supreme Court, so far as the same may be applicable."

This section is new insofar as it affects the Clerk of the Supreme Court and clerks of the district courts and the Customs Court. Existing law does not prescribe the powers and duties of those clerks. The duties of the clerk of the Customs Court have been prescribed by the rules of such court adopted May 29, 1936.

Changes were made in phraseology.
pgai_ex41





 







Exhibit 4.1


 


 



Description of Registrant’s Securities


 



Description of Common Stock


 


The
following description of our Common Stock (as defined below) is
qualified in its entirety by reference to our Restated Articles of
Incorporation (the “Articles of Incorporation”) and our
By-laws (the “Bylaws”), each of which are incorporated
by reference as an exhibit to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
which this Exhibit 4.1 is a part.


 



Authorized Capital Shares.


 


Our
authorized capital shares consist of 25,000,000 shares of common
stock, par value $.10 per share (“Common Stock”) and
5,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $1.00 per share
(“Preferred Stock”).


 



General.


 


Each
share of Common Stock has the same relative rights as, and is
identical in all respects to, each other share of Common Stock. The
outstanding shares of our Common Stock are fully paid and
nonassessable.


 



Voting Rights.


 


Each
share of Common Stock entitles the holder thereof to one vote on
all matters upon which stockholders have the right to vote. Our
Common Stock does not have cumulative voting rights.


 



Dividend Rights.


 


No
dividends have ever been paid on the Common Stock. Payment of
dividends on the Common Stock is subject to the rights of the
holders of outstanding shares of Preferred Stock to receive
cumulative dividends, which rights are described in Note 11 to the
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of which this Exhibit 4.1 is a part. Payment of dividends
on the Common Stock is also restricted under the terms of the two
indentures (one of which matured on June 1, 1991 and the other on
May 1, 1992) pursuant to which the Company’s outstanding
subordinated convertible debentures were issued, the terms of which
debentures are further described in Note 8 to the Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements in Annual Report on Form 10-K of
which this Exhibit 4.1 is a part.


 



No Preemptive or Conversion Rights.


 


Holders
of shares of our Common Stock do not have preemptive rights to
purchase additional shares of our Common Stock and have no
conversion or redemption rights.


 



Liquidation Rights.


 


Subject
to the liquidation preference of the holders of outstanding shares
of Preferred Stock, which preference is described in Note 11 to the
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Annual Report on Form
10-K of which this Exhibit 4.1 is a part, in the event of our
liquidation, dissolution, or winding up, the holders of shares of
our Common Stock shall be entitled to share ratably in any assets
legally available for distribution to holders of capital stock of
the Company.


 



Trading


 


There
is no public trading market for the Company’s Common
Stock.
Affirmed and Opinion Filed May 5, 2014 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01230-CR 

No. 05-13-01231-CR 

COY LEE LORANCE, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. 199-82496-2012, 199-80454-2013 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Moseley, O’Neill, and FitzGerald 

Opinion by Justice FitzGerald 

Coy Lee Lorance pleaded guilty before a jury to five counts of sexual assault of a child 

and three counts of indecency with a child, as alleged in two indictments. See TEX. PENAL CODE 

ANN. §§ 21.11(a)(1), 22.011(a)(2) (West 2011). Appellant also pleaded true to one enhancement 

paragraph, as to each count. The jury found appellant guilty and the enhancement paragraphs 

true. The jury assessed punishment on each sexual assault conviction at forty-two years’ 

imprisonment. The jury assessed punishment on each indecency with a child conviction at 

thirty-one years’ imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he 

concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of 
‐2‐ 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the 

record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 

S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to 

appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se 

response. 

 We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the 

appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support 

the appeal. 

 We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

131230F.U05 

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ 

KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

JUSTICE 
‐3‐ 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

COY LEE LORANCE, Appellant 

No. 05-13-01230-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 Appeal from the 199th Judicial District 

Court of Collin County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

199-82496-2012). 

Opinion delivered by Justice FitzGerald, 

Justices Moseley and O’Neill participating. 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered May 5, 2014 

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ 

KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

JUSTICE 
‐4‐ 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

COY LEE LORANCE, Appellant 

No. 05-13-01231-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 Appeal from the 199th Judicial District 

Court of Collin County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

199-80454-2013). 

Opinion delivered by Justice FitzGerald, 

Justices Moseley and O’Neill participating. 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered May 5, 2014 

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ 

KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

JUSTICE
### §115. Ohio

Ohio is divided into two judicial districts to be known as the Northern and Southern Districts of Ohio.

### Northern District

(a) The Northern District comprises two divisions.

(1) The Eastern Division comprises the counties of Ashland, Ashtabula, Carroll, Columbiana, Crawford, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Holmes, Lake, Lorain, Mahoning, Medina, Portage, Richland, Stark, Summit, Trumbull, Tuscarawas, and Wayne.

Court for the Eastern Division shall be held at Cleveland, Youngstown, and Akron.

(2) The Western Division comprises the counties of Allen, Auglaize, Defiance, Erie, Fulton, Hancock, Hardin, Henry, Huron, Lucas, Marion, Mercer, Ottawa, Paulding, Putnam, Sandusky, Seneca, Van Wert, Williams, Woods, and Wyandot.

Court for the Western Division shall be held at Lima and Toledo.

### Southern District

(b) The Southern District comprises two divisions.

(1) The Western Division comprises the counties of Adams, Brown, Butler, Champaign, Clark, Clermont, Clinton, Darke, Greene, Hamilton, Highland, Lawrence, Miami, Montgomery, Preble, Scioto, Shelby, and Warren.

Court for the Western Division shall be held at Cincinnati and Dayton.

(2) The Eastern Division comprises the counties of Athens, Belmont, Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Fayette, Franklin, Gallia, Guernsey, Harrison, Hocking, Jackson, Jefferson, Knox, Licking, Logan, Madison, Meigs, Monroe, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Noble, Perry, Pickaway, Pike, Ross, Union, Vinton, and Washington.

Court for the Eastern Division shall be held at Columbus 1 St. Clairsville, and Steubenville.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 887; Feb. 10, 1954, ch. 6, §2(b)(9), 68 Stat. 11; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title I, §11021, Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1829.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §181 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §100, 36 Stat. 1121; Mar. 4, 1915, ch. 159, 38 Stat. 1187; Feb. 14, 1923, ch. 78, 42 Stat. 1246).

Other provisions of said section 181 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., are incorporated in section 1865 of this title.

Provisions relating to the place of institution or trial of prosecutions and civil actions and transfer thereof were omitted. Such provisions, as to civil cases, are covered by section 1391 et seq. of this title, and as to criminal cases, are rendered unnecessary because of inherent power of the court and Rules 18–20 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure relating to venue.

The provision respecting court accommodations at Lima was omitted as covered by section 142 of this title.

Changes were made in arrangement and phraseology.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2002—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 107–273, which directed amendment of par. (2) by inserting "St. Clairsville," after "Columbus,", was executed by making the insertion after "Columbus", to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

1954—Subsec. (a)(1). Act Feb. 10, 1954, provided for holding court at Akron.

1 So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 00-032 February 24, 2000

NRC NOW POSTING TO INTERNET PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

FOR ALL OPERATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is now posting detailed information about the safety

performance of all operating nuclear power plants to its Internet web site.

This supplements existing performance information on 13 nuclear power plants posted at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/index.html on NRC’s web site.

In August, the NRC began posting data supplied by nuclear power plant licensees on the

performance of 13 plants participating in a pilot assessment. Information explaining the

revised reactor oversight process, a list of scheduled public meetings and frequently asked questions is

available at the same web site.

The information is being released as part of an NRC initiative to provide more timely, detailed

and understandable information on nuclear power plant safety performance assessments.

##
#### Celia Schafer, Respondent, v. Max Held, Inc., Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
#### Benjamin W. Cohen et al., Suing on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Other Stockholders of Fisk Rubber Corporation Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. Charles A. Dana et al., Defendants, and Karl H. Behr et al., Respondents.

Present — Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ. [See *post,*p. 835.]
#### Morris Levin v. William A. White *&*Sons.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with ten dollars costs, unless appellant complies with terms stated in order. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-193 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 2
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-193 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 2 of 2