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

I, John M. Presley, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form
10-K of the Company;

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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Bank as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The Companys other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
Company and have;

a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
relating to the Company is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b. evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the Evaluation Date); and

c. presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The Companys other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the
Companys ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data, and I have identified for the Company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
Companys internal controls; and

6. The Companys other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual
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: |  | March 31, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ John M. Presley                                          
|      |  |                |  |  |  |  |  | John M. Presley Managing
Director and Chief Executive Officer
37.403 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.237-7, Indemnification and Medical Liability

Insurance, in solicitations and contracts for nonpersonal health care services. The contracting officer

may include the clause in bilateral purchase orders for nonpersonal health care services awarded

under the procedures in part 13.

Parent topic: Subpart 37.4 - Nonpersonal Health Care Services
162 So.2d 575

#### Ruth A. PITRE, Olga Pitre Vegas and Thelma Pitre Gray v. Irion J. BORDELON, Sr.

No. 47199.

April 17, 1964.

In re: Irion J. Bordelon, Sr. applying for certiorari; or writ of review/to-the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit,Parish of Jefferson. 160 So.2d 844.

*1086Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find 'no error of law in its judgment.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of EntreMetrix Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott W. Absher, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

 (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

 (2)        Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| Dated:  May 18, 2007 | /s/ Scott W. Absher  |
|----------------------|----------------------|
|                 | By:  Scott W. Absher |
|                 | Its:  President      |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to EntreMetrix Corporation and will be retained by EntreMetrix Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 58.407 Make room.

The rooms in which the cheese is manufactured shall be of adequate size, and the equipment adequately spaced to permit movement around the equipment for proper cleaning and satisfactory working conditions. Adequate filtered air ventilation should be provided. When applicable, the mold count should be not more than 15 colonies per plate during a 15 minute exposure.
#### In the Matter of Richard Champion, Appellant, v Robert Dennison, as Chair of the New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.

Submitted July 11, 2007;

decided September 18, 2007

Reported below, 40 AD3d 1181.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the issues presented have become moot. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
§ 58.58 Debarment of service. ( a ) The following acts or practices, or the causing thereof, may be deemed sufficient cause for the debarment, by the Administrator, of any person, including any agents, officers, subsidiaries, or affiliates of such person, from any or all benefits of the Act for a specified period. The rules of practice governing withdrawal of inspection and grading services in formal adjudicatory proceedings instituted by the Secretary (7 CFR, part 1, subpart H) shall be applicable to such debarment action. ( 1 ) *Fraud or misrepresentation.* Any willful misrepresentation or deceptive or fraudulent practice or act found to be made or committed by any person in connection with: ( i ) The making or filing of any application for any inspection or grading service, appeal reinspection, or regrading service;
( ii ) The making of the product accessible for inspection or grading service;
( iii ) The making, issuing, or using or attempting to issue or use any inspection or grading certificate issued pursuant to the regulations in this subpart or the use of any official stamp, label, or identification;
( iv ) The use of the terms “United States,” “U.S.,” “Officially graded,” “Officially Inspected,” “Federal-State graded,” or “Government graded,” or terms of similar import in the labeling or advertising of any product without stating in conjunction therewith the official U.S. grade of the product; or
( v ) The use of any of the aforesaid terms or an official stamp, label, or identification in the labeling or advertising of any product that has not been inspected or graded pursuant to this part.
( 2 ) *Use of facsimile form.* Using or attempting to use a form which simulates in whole or in part any official identification for the purpose of purporting to evidence the U.S. grade of any product; or the unauthorized use of a facsimile form which simulates in whole or in part any official inspection or grading certificate, stamp, label, or other official inspection mark; and
( 3 ) *Mislabeling.* The use of any words, numerals, letters, or facsimile form which simulates in whole or in part any identification purporting to be a grade when such product does not comply with any recognized standards in general use for such grade, and such activity may be deemed sufficient cause for debarring such person from any or all benefits of the Act.
( 4 ) *Willful violation of the regulations in this subpart.* Willful violation of the provisions in this part or the Act, or the instructions or specifications issued thereunder.
( 5 ) *Interfering with an inspector or grader.* Any interference with or obstruction or any attempted interference or obstruction of any inspector or grader in the performance of his duties by intimidation, threat, bribery, assault, or other improper means.
( b ) [Reserved]
(60 Stat. 1087, 7 U.S.C. 1621 *et seq.;* 84 Stat. 1620, 21 U.S.C. 1031 *et seq.*)
[37 FR 22363, Oct. 19, 1972. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, as amended at 43 FR 60138, Dec. 26, 1978. Redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981]
52.216-9 Fixed Fee-Construction.

As prescribed in 16.307(c), insert the following clause:

Fixed Fee-Construction (Jun 2011)

(a) The Government shall pay to the Contractor for performing this contract the fixed fee specified in

the Schedule.

(b) Payment of the fixed fee shall be made in installments based upon the percentage of completion

of the work as determined from estimates submitted to and approved by the Contracting Officer, but

subject to the withholding provisions of paragraph (c) of this section.

(c) The Contracting Officer shall withhold a reserve not to exceed 15 percent of the total fixed fee or

$100,000, whichever is less, to protect the Government’s interest. The Contracting Officer shall

release 75 percent of all fee withholds under this contract after receipt of an adequate certified final

indirect cost rate proposal covering the year of physical completion of this contract, provided the

Contractor has satisfied all other contract terms and conditions, including the submission of the final

patent and royalty reports, and is not delinquent in submitting final vouchers on prior years’

settlements. The Contracting Officer may release up to 90 percent of the fee withholds under this

contract based on the Contractor’s past performance related to the submission and settlement of

final indirect cost rate proposals.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.216 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  Oct-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       Jul-31-2000
<CASH>                                                       361,556
<SECURITIES>                                                 351,086
<RECEIVABLES>                                                247,703
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 (33,700)
<INVENTORY>                                                    3,215
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           1,013,926
<PP&E>                                                       608,949
<DEPRECIATION>                                              (299,659)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             1,792,714
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                        396,754
<BONDS>                                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                      32,616
<OTHER-SE>                                                 1,351,435
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               1,792,714
<SALES>                                                      888,411
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             888,411
<CGS>                                                        249,145
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                249,145
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             603,380
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              117,259
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  32,832
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           84,427
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  84,427
<EPS-BASIC>                                                   0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0.25


</TABLE>
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RHONDA FLEMING,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:20cv545–WS/MJF

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

and WARDEN ERICA STRONG,

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 113) docketed August 15, 2022. The magistrate judge recommends that the

plaintiff’s motion for emergency injunctive relief (ECF No. 82) be denied. Plaintiff

has filed no objections to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record, this court has determined that the report and

recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 113) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

Case 4:20-cv-00545-WS-MJF Document 139 Filed 09/22/22 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. The plaintiff’s motion for emergency injunctive relief (ECF No. 82) is

DENIED.

3. The clerk shall refer the case to the magistrate judge for further

proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of September , 2022.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00545-WS-MJF Document 139 Filed 09/22/22 Page 2 of 2
31.703 Requirements.

(a) Contracts which refer to this subpart 31.7 for determining allowable costs shall be deemed to

refer to, and shall have the allowability of costs determined by the contracting officer in accordance

with, the OMB Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR part 200, subpart E and appendix IV in effect on the date

of the contract.

(b) Agencies are not expected to place additional restrictions on individual items of cost. However,

under 10 U.S.C. 3744 and 41 U.S.C.4304, the costs cited in 31.603(b) are unallowable.

Parent topic: Subpart 31.7 - Contracts with Nonprofit Organizations
#### Alan R. Kruteck, Respondent, v. Herbert D. Schimmel, Defendant, and Independent Publishing Co. of Westchester County, Inc., Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 23, 1966, which denied appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint or for summary judgment, reversed and summary judgment granted in favor of appellant, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, the statements alleged to be defamatory were qualifiedly privileged in view of the responsibility, and prominence in the community, of plaintiff’s position as auditor of the Westchester Joint Water Works and in the light of the fact that plaintiff had thrust himself into the vortex of the public discussion concerning this position. Accordingly, he cannot recover damages for such statements unless he proves that the publication was made with actual malice, that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to whether it was false or not *(New York Times Co.*v. *Sullivan,*376 U. S. 254; *Rosenblatt*v. *Baer,*383 U. S. 75; *Time, Inc.,*v. *Hill,*385 U. S. 374; *Gilberg*v. *Goffi,*21 A D 2d 517, affd. 15 N Y 2d 1023). In our opinion, plaintiff failed to submit evidence of actual malice sufficient to raise an issue with respect thereto. Since it appears that plaintiff has not suffered an actionable wrong, it is our conclusion that appellant’s motion for summary judgment should have been *838granted *(Gilberg v. Goffi, supra).*Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
[No. 8855.

Department One.

December 21, 1910.]

#### W. D. Ingalls *et al., Appellants,*v. George W. Eastman, Respondent.1

Highways — Obstruction—Special Damages. Tbe obstruction of a highway may be enjoined by one who suffers a special damage in that he uses the highway at least twice a day to go from his residence to another tract which he was farming, and the obstruction required him to use another road with worse grades and twice the distance.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Yakima county, Preble, J., entered December 8,1909, upon sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, dismissing an action to enjoin the obstruction of a highway and for damages.

Reversed.

*Frank A. Luse,*for appellants.

1

Reported in 112 Pac. 372.

Gose, J.

The plaintiffs are the owners of a part of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section 28, and of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section *29034, township 13, N. It. 18, E., in Yakima county. They reside upon the former tract, and farm both pieces of land. There is a public highway leading directly from their residence to their land in section 34. About six months before the commencement of the action, the defendant obstructed the highway by building a wire fence across it. In addition to the facts stated, the complaint alleges that the defendant will continue to maintain the obstruction unless required to abate it by a judicial order; that the plaintiffs go from their home to the land in section 34 at least twice each day; that they have made more than three hundred round trips since the creation of the obstruction; that owing to the obstruction they have been compelled to travel about twice the distance upon each trip, and that the closed highway has the better grade. A demurrer was interposed to the complaint, raising two questions: (1) that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and (2) that the court has no jurisdiction of the subject-matter or the parties. From a judgment sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the action, the plaintiffs have appealed.

It is apparent that the appellants suffer a special damage beyond that suffered by the general public, and that their property is injuriously affected and their personal enjoyment lessened within the meaning of the statute. See Rem. & Bal. Code, §§ 943, 944, and 8316. The question presented by the demurrer has recently received careful consideration by this court. *Sholin v. Skamania Boom Co.,*56 Wash. 303, 105 Pac. 632. Under the view there announced, the complaint states a cause of action. No brief has been filed on behalf of the respondent. The court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties, and erred in sustaining the demurrer. The order sustaining the demurrer was entered before the opinion in the *Sholin*case was filed.

The judgment is reversed for further proceedings.

Rudkin, C. J., Fullerton, Mount, and Parker, JJ.,, concur.
# C_2014074EN.01000101.xml

| 13.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION

COUNCIL DECISION

of 11 March 2014

appointing four United Kingdom members of the Committee of the Regions

2014/C 74/01

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the United Kingdom Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU and 2010/29/EU appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015 (1).

1

| (2) | Four members' seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Ms Doris ANSARI, Sir Simon DAY, Mr David PARSONS and Mr Francie MOLLOY, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Four members' seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Ms Doris ANSARI, Sir Simon DAY, Mr David PARSONS and Mr Francie MOLLOY,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed as members to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

| — | Ms Megan FEARON, Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) of Northern Ireland, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ms Megan FEARON, Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) of Northern Ireland,

| — | Mr Andrew LEWER, Councillor, Derbyshire County Council, |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Andrew LEWER, Councillor, Derbyshire County Council,

| — | Ms Jill SHORTLAND, Councillor, Somerset County Council, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ms Jill SHORTLAND, Councillor, Somerset County Council,

| — | Mr Harvey SIGGS, Councillor, Somerset County Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Harvey SIGGS, Councillor, Somerset County Council.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 11 March 2014.

For the Council

The President

I. STOURNARAS

---

(1)  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22 and OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.

1

---
Description of Compensation for Non-Management Directors.



 Exhibit 10.2 
 Xerium Technologies, Inc. 
 Description of Compensation for Non-Management Directors 
 Effective March 2009 
 Cash Compensation 

Non-management directors receive an annual cash retainer of $30,000. The chairman of the Audit Committee also receives additional cash compensation at an annual rate
of $10,000 per year, and the chairman of the Compensation Committee and the chairman of the Nominating and Governance Committee each receive additional cash compensation at an annual rate of $5,000 per year. These amounts are payable quarterly in
arrears promptly following the end of the quarter. Directors are also reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses for attending board and committee meetings. 
 Equity Compensation 
 Non-management directors also receive equity-based compensation in the form of a grant of restricted stock units
following the annual meeting to stockholders in recognition of their services for the ensuing year. The number of restricted stock units granted to each non-management director is calculated by dividing $40,000 by the average closing price per share
of the Company’s common stock over the 20 trading days prior the annual meeting of stockholders. The restricted stock units shall be granted promptly after the 20-trading day period runs. 
 Dividends, if any, in respect of these restricted stock units are paid at the same rate as dividends on the Company’s common stock but are paid only in the form of
additional restricted stock units. The restricted stock units are fully vested at grant. Upon the termination of the director’s service on the Company’s board, such director is entitled to receive the number of shares of common stock that
equals the number of restricted stock units the director has earned.
DANIEL DAVIS III

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 2784

_______ ______________________/

Opinion filed November 3, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Mark W. Moseley , Judge

.

Daniel Davis III, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.