alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1**Certification of Principal Executive Officer**I, Michael P. Sage, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Orchids Paper Products Company (the“Registrant”);2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this 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-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) [reserved](c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  November 9, 2005 /s/ Michael P. Sage   Michael P. Sage   Chief Executive Officer and President
Compensatory Arrangements with Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.14 
  
 Compensatory Arrangements with Executive Officers 
  
 Compensation for executives at TECO Energy, Inc. (the “Corporation”) consists of several components. Included among these are base salary and an annual
incentive award program. 
  
 Base salary information for named executive officers
for 2005 is set forth in the table below. 
  
 The Corporation’s annual
incentive plan, last amended in 2002, is included as Exhibit 10.3 to the Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K to which this document is an exhibit (the “Report”). A description of the 2004 payouts and 2005 target awards under this
plan was included in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed on February 1, 2005, and is hereby incorporated by reference. The 2005 target award percentages described in that Current Report for the named executive officers are set forth in the table
below. 
  
 Compensatory arrangements relating to other aspects of the
Corporation’s executive compensation program are included as exhibits to the Report. 
  
 Named Executive Officer Salary and Target Award Percentage Information for 2005 
  

									
	 Name

	  	 Title

	  	Salary

	  	Target
Award %

	 
	 Sherrill W. Hudson
	  	Chairman and CEO	  	*$	721,548	  	70	%
	 John B. Ramil
	  	President and Chief Operating Officer	  	  $	478,400	  	65	%
	 Gordon L. Gillette
	  	Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer	  	  $	410,800	  	55	%
	 William N. Cantrell
	  	President of Peoples Gas System	  	  $	345,000	  	40	%
	 Jimmy J. Shackleford
	  	President of TECO Coal Corporation	  	  $	278,460	  	45	%

  
 * Mr. Hudson’s 2005 salary
consists of $196,548 in cash and TECO Energy restricted shares valued at $525,000, with the restrictions lapsing in four quarterly installments. Mr. Hudson also receives a monthly housing allowance of $3,500, in recognition of his retaining his
primary residence in Miami.
§ 2811.3 Indexes. ( a ) *Background.* 15 U.S.C. 552(a)(2) also requires that each agency maintain and make available for public inspection and copying current indexes provided identifying information for the public with regard to any records which are made available for public inspection and copying. OO does not maintain any materials within the scope of these requirements.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

Case No. 3:19md2885

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

McCombs, 7:20cv94

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS ORDER NO. 4

This Order also addresses Defendants’ objections and counter-designations to 

Plaintiff’s affirmative deposition designations and Plaintiff’s objections to 

Defendants’ counter-designations thereto for the following witness depositions:

1. Cimino, M. 12-11-2019

SO ORDERED, on this 18th day of May, 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00094-MCR-GRJ Document 128 Filed 05/18/21 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Carrasquillo, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on December 15, 1978, unanimously affirmed. by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*
      *753386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan, Ross and Silverman, JJ.
#### § 28.434 Low Middling Tinged Color.

Low Middling Tinged Color is color which is within the range represented by a set of samples in the custody of the United States Department of Agriculture in a container marked “Original Official Cotton Standards of the United States, American Upland, Low Middling Tinged, effective July 1, 1987.”
#### Delidakis Construction Co., Inc., Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

[815 NYS2d 76]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about August 10, 2005, which dismissed the fourth and fifth causes of action on the ground that plaintiff failed to commence the action prior to the expiration of the limitations period set forth in the parties’ contract, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff s claims arose under the agreement as well as the contract, and are time-barred in accordance with the unambiguous limitations clause in article 53 of the agreement *(see Grace Indus., Inc. v New York City Dept. of Transp.,*22 AD3d 262 [2005] , *lv denied*6 NY3d 703 [2006]).

Plaintiffs reliance on *Perini Corp. v City of New York*(178 F3d 90 [2d Cir 1999]) is unavailing, inasmuch as the decision is not binding on a New York State court *(Matter of Mason [State Commn. on Jud. Conduct],*100 NY2d 56, 58 [2003]; *see also People v Kin Kan,*78 NY2d 54, 59-60 [1991]). For substantially the same reasons stated by Supreme Court, we disagree with the conclusion in *Perini Corp.*as to the limitation period of article 53, and note that the City apparently failed to make in *404
      *Perini Corp.*all of the arguments that it advanced below and on this appeal. To the extent there was an ambiguity, since plaintiff bidder was obligated to discover and inquire as to any claimed ambiguity prior to submission of a bid, any such claim must be construed against plaintiff, not against defendant *(see Acme Bldrs. v Facilities Dev. Corp.,*51 NY2d 833 [1980]).

Furthermore, the existence of an unrescinded contract precluded any recovery in quantum meruit in these circumstances *(Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70*NY2d 382, 389 [1987]). The fourth cause of action would thus have been dismissed on this alternative ground. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ. *[See*9 Misc 3d 517 (2005).]
V: \ SIERRA \ Environmental \ Environ \ FREEARK \ REGIONAL HAZE

- BART

\ Cover letter_062912.docx June 29, 2012

Ms. Deborah Jordan

Director, Air Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

- 3901

Re: Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (AEPCO)

C omments on BART for Apache Generating Stat ion

Dear Ms. Jordan:

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc, (AEPCO) appreciates the opportunity to provide the

enclosed comments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX staff

.

Please contact me at (520) 586

- 5122, or Eric Hiser, AEPCO’s counsel , at (480) 505

- 3927,

if you have any questions concerning this submittal.

Sincerely,

Michelle Freeark

Michelle R. Freeark

Director of Environmental Services

cc: Ms. Colleen W. McKaughan , EPA Region IX w/enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> 
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
Statement of Financial Condition at October 31, 1998 (Audited) and the 
Statement of Income for the Year Ended October 31, 1998 (Audited).  It is 
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                    <C>                   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          YEAR 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      Oct-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           Oct-31-1998
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              128,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                417,343
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           624,252
<PP&E>                                     165,906
<DEPRECIATION>                             139,020
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             764,670
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      256,702
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   281,001
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               764,670
<SALES>                                  1,232,244
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         1,232,244
<CGS>                                      462,819
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              362,135
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            32,803
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            374,487 
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        374,487
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               374,487 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0.06 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.05

</TABLE>
#### § 29.3015 Crude.

A subdegree of maturity. Crude leaves are usually hard and slick as a result of extreme immaturity. A similar condition may result from sunburn or sunscald. Any leaf which is crude to the extent of 20 percent of its leaf surface may be described as crude. (See Rule 19.)

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959; 24 FR 9121, Nov. 10, 1959. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:95cr03082-01/LAC

LARRY BERNARD SHEPPARD

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on February 2, 2010 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION for Retroactive Application of Sentencing Guidelines to Crack

Cocaine Offense 18 USC § 3582 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on 1/12/2010 Doc.# 117

RESPONSES:

 None on Doc.# 

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Jerry Marbut

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 15 day of

th

March, 2010, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) The defendant was held accountable for 23.4 kilograms of cocaine base at

sentencing which resulted in a base offense level of 38. Since the Drug Quantity

Table at §2D1.1 assigns a base offense level of 38 for 4.5 kilograms or more of

cocaine base, the defendant’s base offense level, total offense level and

guideline imprisonment range are unchanged. Therefore, the defendant is not

eligible for any relief pursuant to Amendments 706, 711 and 715.

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ROBERT MICHAEL MCDONALD,

Inmate No. 00030838,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5388/LAC/EMT

GRAHAM FOUNTAIN, et al.,

Defendant.

et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the chief magistrate judge’s

Report and Recommendation dated May 26, 2020 (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff has been

furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and afforded an opportunity

to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I

have made a de novo determination of the timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections

thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted

and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 3:20-cv-05388-LC-EMT Document 19 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. Plaintiff’s “Amended Order to Show Cause for a[] Preliminary

Injunction & a Temporary Restraining Order” (ECF No. 5) and “Order to Issue

Preliminary Injunction & Temporary Restraining Order” (ECF No. 14) are

DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 2ndday of June, 2020.

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 3:20cv5388/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05388-LC-EMT Document 19 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 2
#### § 28.602 Terms of designations.

The fiber fineness and maturity of any cotton shall be designated by the micronaire reading obtained from an air flow instrument test for a specimen of the cotton as determined under § 28.603, e.g., 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, etc. To simplify recording, the decimal point may be omitted, and the micronaire reading recorded as 41, 42, 43, etc.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff - Appe lle e , v. B LAS R OB ER TO VELAZQUEZM AR TINEZ,

De fe nda n t - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-50378

D.C . No. 3:15-c r-01068-H
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M arily n L. Huff, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2016 ** B e fore : W ALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. B la s R obe rto Ve la z que z -M artine z a ppe a l s from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt
and c ha lle nge s the 60-m o n th se nte nc e im pose d following his guilty -ple a
c onvic tion for im

porta tion of m e tha

m phe tam ine , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 952 

# FIL ED
DEC 27 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).and 960. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we va c ate and re m and for re se nte nc i ng. Ve la z que z -M artine z argue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing a m inor role re duc tion to his ba se offe nse le ve l unde r U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2(b). Afte r Ve la z que z -M artine z wa s se nte nc e d, the Unite d State s Se nte nc i ng C om m ission issue d Am e ndm e nt 794 (“ the Am e ndm e nt” ), whic h am e nde d the c om m e nta ry to the m inor role Guide line
. The Am e ndm e nt is re troa c tive to c a se s on dire c t a ppe a l
. Se e U nite d State

s v . Quinte ro-Le

y v a , 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th C ir. 2016). Am ong othe r things, the

Am e ndm e nt a dde d a

non-e x ha ustive list of fa c tors that a c ourt “ should c onside r” in de te rm ining whe the r to a pply a m inor role
re duc t ion. Se e U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2 c m t. n.3(C ) (2015). W e c annot de te rm ine from the re c ord whe the r the distric t c ourt c onside re d a ll of thosefa c tors in de t e rm ining whe the r Ve la z q

ue z -M artine z wa s e ntitle d to a m inor role a djustm e nt. 1 The re fore , we re m and for the distric t c ourt to re se nte nc e Ve la z que z -M artine z with thebe ne fit of ne wly am e nde d § 3B 1.2. Se e Quinte ro-Le y v a , 823 F.3d a

t 523-24. V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D for r e se nte nc i ng.

1 W e a lso notetha

t Ve la z que z -M artine z argue s the distric t c o urt fa ile d to m ake a c om pa ra tive ana ly sis be twe e n him an d the othe r a lle ge d pa

rtic ipa nts in the offe nse . Se e Unite d State s v . Rojas-Millan , 234 F.3d 464, 473-74 (9th C ir. 2000). 1 5
- 5 0 3 7 8 2
#### § 249.27 OMB Control Number.

The information collection requirements for part 249 have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OMB approval number is 0584-0541.

[72 FR 13671, Mar. 23, 2007]
#### § 29.2414 Rule 23.

Tobacco that is semifired but which otherwise meets the specifications of a grade shall be treated as a subgrade by placing the special factor “SF” after the grademark. This factor does not apply to tobacco designated “No-G”.

[51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
                                                                    ------------



                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
                           --------------------------



Subsidiary                                    Jurisdiction of Incorporation
----------                                    -----------------------------

L.A. Gear California, Inc.                    California

Raegal Finance, Inc.                          Texas

L.A. Gear Licensing Corp.                     California

Brands Acquisition Corp.                      California

L.A. Gear (France) SARL                       France

L.A. Gear (Benelux) B.V.                      Netherlands

L.A. Gear (UK) Limited                        United Kingdom

L.A. Gear (Deutschland) GmbH                  Germany

L.A. Gear (Italia) SRL                        Italy

L.A. Gear Korea                               Korea

L.A. Gear H.K. Ltd.                           Hong Kong

L.A. Gear Sportswear, Ltd.                    Hong Kong

L.A. Gear (Mexico), S.A. de C.V.              Mexico

L.A. Gear Servicios, S.A. de C.V.             Mexico

L.A. Gear - Inchcape Limited                  British Virgin Islands

L.A. Gear (Far East) Limited                  British Virgin Islands
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 10 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk February 10 , 2017

153830 (75)

RONNIE DANCER and ANNETTE DANCER,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

SC: 153830

v COA: 324314

Kalamazoo CC: 2012

- 000571

- NO

CLARK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant

- Appellant,

and

BETTER BUILT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES,

INC.,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of defendant

- appellee to file a

supplemental brief in support of the application for leave to appeal in No. 153830 is

GRANTED

. The supplemental brief submitted on February 1, 2016, is accepted for

filing. The motion of defendant

- appellee to participate in oral arguments is DENIED.
(163 App. Div. 16)

#### LEOPOLD v. HEYMANN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 5, 1914.)

1. Submission of Controversy (§ 17*)—Hearing.

On submission oí a controversy on an agreed statement of facts authorized by Code Civ. Proc. § 1279, the court can draw no inferences, but is limited strictly to the facts set out as conceded.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Submission of Controversy, Cent. Dig.. § 19; Dec. Dig. § 17.*]

*512. Submission op Controversy (§ 17*)—Scope op Remedy.

Where, in a prior action to determine claims to real property, it was sought to bar the rights of certain defendants whose existence was in doubt, and summons ran against a certain defendant and three other persons named, or, if dead, against their widows, heirs, and grantees, all of whom were proceeded against through service by publication, whether the court acquired jurisdiction over the necessary parties so as to cut off their adverse possible interests could not be determined on a submission of controversy provided for by Code Civ. Proe. § 1279, without a statement of the ultimate facts.

[Ed. Note.—Eor other cases, see Submission of Controversy, Cent. Dig. § 19; Dec. Dig. § 17.*]

Submission of controversy on credited statement of facts under Code Civil Procedure, § 1279, between Bernard Leopold and Abraham Heymann.

Dismissed without prejudice.

Argued before JENKS, P. J., and BURR, RICH, STAPLETON, and PUTNAM, JJ.

Adam Christmann, Jr., of Brooklyn, for plaintiff.

Harry Percy David, of Brooklyn, for defendant.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract for the sale of Flatbush land, for which plaintiff agreed to pay $7,500. The plaintiff, however, objected to the title on account of the form of the summons in a prior action under section 1638 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to determine claims to real property. In this action an effort was made to reach and bar William Lyons and wife, and other defendants, whose existence was in doubt, so that the summons ran against William Lyons and three other persons named, or, if dead, against their widows and heirs and grantees, all of whom had been proceeded against through service by publication. Upon this submission, the court is asked whether in this prior suit, jurisdiction over the necessary parties has been acquired, so as to cut off such adverse possible interests.

[1,2] On an agreed statement of facts, this court can draw no inferences, and is bound strictly to the facts set out as conceded. Herein we are different from a trial court, which could infer the conclusions to which these facts point. Such evidentiary facts in an agreed statement, with no ultimate facts, do not present a case for disposition by this court under section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Hence we have to dismiss these proceedings without prejudice to relief by an action, and without costs to either party, following Cerf v. Diener, 210 N. Y. 156, 162, 104 N. E. 126.