alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**     I, Tom W. Deery, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Dirt Motor Sports, Inc.2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresas of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the“Evaluation Date”); andc) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any materialweaknesses in internal controls; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly reportwhether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors thatcould significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recentevaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.          Date:March 30, 2007 /s/ Tom W. Deery         Tom W. Deery,    Chief Executive Officer and President  
51
§ 250.54 Recordkeeping and reviews. ( a ) *Recordkeeping requirements for the recipient agency.* The recipient agency must maintain the following records relating to the use of donated foods in its contract with the food service management company: ( 1 ) The donated foods and processed end products received and provided to the food service management company for use in the recipient agency's food service;
( 2 ) Documentation that the food service management company has credited it for the value of all donated foods received for use in the recipient agency's food service in the school or fiscal year, including, in accordance with the requirements in § 250.51(a), the value of donated foods contained in processed end products; and
( 3 ) The actual donated food values used in crediting.
( b ) *Recordkeeping requirements for the food service management company.* The food service management company must maintain the following records relating to the use of donated foods in its contract with the recipient agency: ( 1 ) The donated foods and processed end products received from, or on behalf of, the recipient agency, for use in the recipient agency's food service;
( 2 ) Documentation that it has credited the recipient agency for the value of all donated foods received for use in the recipient agency's food service in the school or fiscal year, including, in accordance with the requirements in § 250.51(a), the value of donated foods contained in processed end products; and
( 3 ) Documentation of its procurement of processed end products on behalf of the recipient agency, as applicable.
( c ) *Review requirements for the recipient agency.* The recipient agency must ensure that the food service management company is in compliance with the requirements of this part through its monitoring of the food service operation, as required in 7 CFR parts 210, 225, or 226, as applicable. The recipient agency must also conduct a reconciliation at least annually (and upon termination of the contract) to ensure that the food service management company has credited it for the value of all donated foods received for use in the recipient agency's food service in the school or fiscal year, including, in accordance with the requirements in § 250.51(a), the value of donated foods contained in processed end products.
( d ) *Departmental reviews of food service management companies.* The Department may conduct reviews of food service management company operations, as necessary, to ensure compliance with the requirements of this part with respect to the use and management of donated foods.
#### § 27.25 Additional samples of cotton; drawing.

In addition to the samples hereinbefore prescribed, separate samples, if desired, may be drawn and furnished to the owner of the cotton.
#### § 28.184 Availability of electronic cotton classification data.

As soon as practicable after the classification or comparison of cotton has been completed, electronic cotton classification data for each sample submitted will be made available for the owner or the owner's agent to retrieve. The data record transmitted is representative of only the sample submitted by the owner or the owner's agent rather than any particular cotton bale.

[81 FR 7031, Feb. 10, 2016]
Editorial Note on Part 1940
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1940 appear at 80 FR 9876, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1940.955 Distribution of program funds to designated States. ( a ) States selected to participate in the first established time period will receive funds from designated rural development programs according to applicable program regulations until the end of FY 1992, if necessary for States to have sufficient time to meet the eligibility requirements of this subpart, and to be designated to participate in this program. No funds will be administered under this subpart to an ineligible State.
( b ) If a State becomes an eligible State any time prior to the end of FY 1992, any funds remaining unobligated from a State's FY 1992 allocation, may be administered under this subpart.
( c ) Beginning in FY 1993 and for each established time period thereafter, all designated rural development program funds received by a designated State will be administered in accordance with §§ 1940.961 through 1940.965 of this subpart, provided the State is determined eligible prior to the beginning of each FY in accordance with § 1940.954 of this subpart. No assistance will be provided under any designated rural development program in any designated State that is not an eligible State.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-17-00850-CR

Jordan Christopher GARCIA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR11931

Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 21, 2018

DISMISSED

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, 

and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and 

agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately reflects that the 

underlying case is a plea-bargain case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 

Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be 

dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part 
04-17-00850-CR

- 2 -

of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). On February 8, 2018, we ordered that 

this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification 

showing that the appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record by March 

9, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). No 

response was filed. In the absence of an amended trial court certification showing that the 

appellant has the right of appeal, rule 25.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Cunningham, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 1, 1978, upon resentence, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Defendant stole a billfold from a shoulder bag being worn by a decoy policeman. At the time of the larceny, the policeman was sitting on a step on a stairway leading to a subway station with his right shoulder against the wall, and with the strap of the shoulder bag around his left shoulder. The shoulder bag from which defendant removed the billfold was "more or less hanging” on the officer’s back. We hold that under these facts, the billfold was stolen "from the person” of the officer, so as to constitute grand larceny pursuant to subdivision 5 of section 155.30 of the Penal Law. Since there was no view of the evidence which would support a finding that defendant committed petit larceny but not grand larceny, the court acted properly in refusing to charge the jury as to petit larceny (see CPL 300.50, subd 1; *People v Shuman,*37 NY2d 302). We have considered the other contentions raised by defendant and have found them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.
#### § 2045.1756 Records and reports.

The FmHA or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354 official signing the Agreement Form will maintain records to show the names, duty assignments, time worked and work locations of all persons performing gratuitous services. Copies of time reports submitted to the persons' employers should suffice. These records will be necessary to respond to occasional requests for reports on the acceptance and utilization of gratuitous services in the FmHA or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

STARQUINESHIA PALMER,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv130-MW/MAF

MARK INCH, Secretary 

Department of Corrections,

Respondent.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 12. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Petitioner’s § 2254 petition is 

DENIED.” A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk shall close the file.

SO ORDERED on March 4, 2021.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00130-MW-MAF Document 13 Filed 03/04/21 Page 1 of 1
2005 form of Company Employee Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement



 Exhibit 10.24 
  
 February 22, 2005 
  
 John H. Doe 
 111 Somewhere Street 
 Richmond, VA 22222 
  
 Dear John: 
  
 You have been granted a nonqualified stock option to purchase 1,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company, subject to the terms and conditions (i) in the Company’s
2000 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended from time to time (the “Plan”), and (ii) as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof (together, with this letter, the “Agreement”), as follows: 
  

					
	Date of Agreement/Grant:	    	 February 7, 2005
	  	 
	Exercise Price Per Share:	    	 $33.06
	  	 
	Total Exercise Price:	    	 $33,060.00
	  	 
	Expiration Date:	    	 2/7/2012
	  	 
	Vesting Schedule:	    	 25% per year for 4 years
	  	 
	 	    	 1,500 on 02/07/2006
	  	 
	 	    	 1,500 on 02/07/2007
	  	 
	 	    	 1,500 on 02/07/2008
	  	 
	 	    	 1,500 on 02/07/2009
	  	 

  
 Please indicate your acceptance by
executing two (2) original copies of this Agreement and returning one (1) copy by U.S. Mail to Gwynn Noble. 
  

	
	 Very truly yours,

	
	 Martin L. Vaughan, III

	 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



  
 By my signature below, I hereby
acknowledge my Consent to Electronic Delivery, receipt of this Option, pursuant to all terms and conditions of the Plan, and electronic receipt of the Plan and Prospectus. I agree to conform to all of the terms and conditions of the Option and the
Plan. 
  

							
	 Signature:
	 	  

	 	 Date:
	 	  


	 	 	 John H. Doe
	 	 	 	 

  
 Note: If there are any discrepancies
in the name or address shown above, please make the appropriate corrections on this form. 







 NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTIONS 
 FOR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 
  

					
	 	 	 GRANT DATE

	 	 OPTIONS GRANTED


	 Martin L. Vaughan, III
	 	2/7/05	 	50,000
			
	 Robert B. Lockhart
	 	2/7/05	 	24,000
			
	 Timothy J. Korman
	 	2/7/05	 	18,000
			
	 John P. McGrath
	 	2/7/05	 	14,500
			
	 Thomas Stiles
	 	2/7/05	 	14,500
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

###### Editorial Note on Part 281

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 281 appear at 78 FR 11972, Feb. 21, 2013.

#### § 281.6 Liabilities and sanctions.

An ITO administering SNAP on a reservation is subject to the same liabilities and Federal sanctions as is any other State agency. FNS shall monitor administration of the Program and conduct reviews through the Performance Reporting System described in part 275. When necessary, warning procedures and other Federal sanctions prescribed in part 276 will be implemented.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lionel Williams, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered April 21, 1977, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 6 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed. Defendant raises several issues, only one of which warrants discussion. In his summation the prosecutor made a series of statements, which, defendant contends, demonstrated "a malicious intent to inflame and deceive the jury” by "portraying the case as a symbolic test of the court’s ability to function”: "In this one case, we’re truly testing whether or not the Court can really function and meet the needs of the community [objection sustained]. We’re testing whether or not a skillful lawyer can get a criminal, an obvious criminal, based upon the evidence of— [objection sustained]. What each of you have to do in this case is simple. You have to make a decision. If you can live with your consciences by turning this proven robber here in court and cop fighter out of the court without a conviction, go right ahead *526[objection sustained]. If we can’t get a conviction in a case like this, forget it. The citizens, not the police, got a predator like Lionel Williams off the street [objection sustained].” Such comments, with their blatant appeal to a collective instinct for retribution, were improper since they tended to mischaracterize the issue before the jury as the continued integrity of the judicial system, rather than defendant’s guilt or innocence. However reprehensible, we do not believe that these comments deprived defendant of a fair trial. The court sustained objections to the statements as they were made, and issued a stern admonition to the prosecutor. In view of the court’s corrective measures, no error warranting reversal was committed. We also observe that defendant, represented by experienced counsel, did not view these comments as sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a motion for a mistrial. Concur—Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Bloom, Lupiano and Ross, JJ.
Exhibit 10.22


Pixelworks, Inc.


2004 Senior Management Bonus Plan



Bonuses for executive officers of the Company are calculated based on attainment of planned levels of revenue, pro forma operating income and net income in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), as well as attainment of specified product goals.  Each of the goals is weighted as follows:



	 	 	 	 	 
	Revenue
	 	 	25.0	%
	Pro Forma Operating Income
	 	 	12.5	%
	GAAP Net Income
	 	 	12.5	%
	Operational Goals
	 	 	50.0	%
	 
	 	 	
	 
	
	 	 	100.0	%





If all goals are attained, bonuses are calculated as a percentage of each executive officer’s salary, as follows:



	 	 	 	 	 
	President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	100	%
	Chief Operating Officer
	 	 	100	%
	Vice Presidents
	 	 	50	%





If goals are not attained, bonuses are reduced proportionally.  Additionally, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors may increase or decrease individual bonuses based on qualitative factors.


Determination as to whether or not the performance targets have been met is made quarterly.  The payout of bonuses occurred in the first quarter of 2005.
98-1354.

#### State v. Glavic.

Lake App. No. 96-L-135. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-13 Filed 08/09/22 Page 1 of 7
P-GEN-00009.1 Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-13 Filed 08/09/22 Page 2 of 7
P-GEN-00009.2 Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-13 Filed 08/09/22 Page 3 of 7
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CID File0003

P1079.3

P-GEN-00009.3 Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-13 Filed 08/09/22 Page 4 of 7
P-GEN-00009.4 Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-13 Filed 08/09/22 Page 5 of 7
P-GEN-00009.5 Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-13 Filed 08/09/22 Page 6 of 7
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CID File0006

P1079.6

P-GEN-00009.6 Case 7:20-cv-02945-MCR-HTC Document 20-13 Filed 08/09/22 Page 7 of 7
§ 250.56 Provision of donated foods in NSLP. ( a ) *Distribution of donated foods in NSLP.* The Department provides donated foods in NSLP to distributing agencies. Distributing agencies provide donated foods to school food authorities that participate in NSLP for use in serving nutritious lunches or other meals to schoolchildren in their nonprofit school food service. The distributing agency must confirm the participation of school food authorities in NSLP with the State administering agency (if different from the distributing agency). In addition to requirements in this part relating to donated foods, distributing agencies and school food authorities in NSLP must adhere to Federal regulations in 7 CFR part 210, as applicable.
( b ) *Types of donated foods distributed.* The Department purchases a wide variety of foods for distribution in NSLP each school year. A list of available foods is posted on the FNS Web site, for access by distributing agencies and school food authorities. In addition to Section 6 foods (42 U.S.C. 1755) as described in paragraph (c) of this section, the distributing agency may also receive Section 14 donated foods (42 U.S.C. 1762(a)), and donated foods under Section 32 (7 U.S.C. 612c), Section 416 (7 U.S.C. 1431), or Section 709 (7 U.S.C. 1446a-1), as available.
( c ) *National per-meal value of donated foods.* For each school year, the distributing agency receives, at a minimum, the national per-meal value of donated foods, as established by Section 6(c) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1755(c)), multiplied by the number of reimbursable lunches served in the State in the previous school year. The donated foods provided in this manner are referred to as Section 6 foods, or entitlement foods. The national per-meal value is adjusted each year to reflect changes in the Bureau of Labor Statistic's Producer Price Index for Foods Used in Schools and Institutions, in accordance with the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. The adjusted value is published in a notice in the Federal Register in July of each year. Reimbursable lunches are those that meet the nutritional standards established in 7 CFR part 210, and that are reported to FNS, in accordance with the requirements in that part.
( d ) *Donated food values used to credit distributing agency entitlement levels.* FNS uses the average price (cost per pound) for USDA purchases of donated food made in a contract period to credit distributing agency entitlement levels.
( e ) *Cash in lieu of donated foods.* States that phased out their food distribution facilities prior to July 1, 1974, are permitted to choose to receive cash in lieu of the donated foods to which they would be entitled in NSLP, in accordance with the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1765) and with 7 CFR part 240.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10619 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PAUL Z. LOWDER, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:96-CR-70-1-G

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Paul Z. Lowder, federal prisoner # 29028-077, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because Lowder’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenged the legality of his conviction, Lowder had to show that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 provided him with an inadequate or ineffective remedy.
See Pack v. Yusuff , 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). Lowder fails to identify any authority demonstrating that he was convicted of a non-existent offense for purposes ofNo. 03-10619 -2- satisfying the savings clause provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
See Reyes-Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). Rather, Lowder’s claim of “actual innocence” is based on the argument that his conviction was obtained pursuant to a faulty indictment. Because Lowder fails to demonstrate that relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.