alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 
 I, Albert H. Pleus, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of a21, Inc.;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4. The small business issuers other certifying officers 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date: November 15, 2004
/s/ Albert H. PleusAlbert H. Pleus
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### § 2700.72 [Reserved]
#### *Hawley *vs.*Smith.

An *innkeeper*is not liable, in his character as such, if sheep he put to pasture under the direction of the guest, and they are injured by eating poisonous plants; if, however, the innkeeper is chargeable with negligence, or want of due care, in the premises, he is responsible in damages.

This was an *action on the case,*tried at the Chemung circuit in October, 1839, before the Hon. Robert Monell, one of the circuit judges.

The defendant was an *innkeeper,*and the plaintiff stopped at his house with a drove of 700 sheep, which, with his knowledge, was turned out to pasture. In the pasture, or in a gulf adjoining it, grew laurel, a poisonous weed ; and on the next day several of the sheep of the plaintiff died, and others sickened, so that he was obliged to lay by for several days with his drove and servants; and from the evidence produced on the trial, it was manifest that the sheep had eaten laurel, and that the flock was greatly injured. The judge charged the jury, in substance, that an *innkeeper*was liable if the horse or other animal of a guest turned out to pasture was injured by eating poisonous plants grov/ing in the grounds, and that without reference to his knowledge of the existence of such plants; and that if they were satisfied from the evidence adduced on the trial, the that sheep were poisoned by eating *laurel*in the defendant’s pasture, the plaintiff was entitled to their verdict. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, with $95.50 damages. The defendant moved for a new trial.

*J. A. Spencer,*for the defendant,

insisted that the sheep having been put to pasture at the request of the plaintiff, the defendant, in his character of innkeeper, was not liable for the injury sustained. That he was only liable for the want of due care ; which question should have been submitted to the jury, instead of being instructed as they were by the charge of the judge. He cited 2 *Kent’s Com.*592, 8 *Co.*32.

*L. R. Marsh,*contra.

*"By the Gourt,*

Nelson, C. J.

I am of opinion this case falls [ *643 ] within an exception laid down in *Cayle’s case,*8 *Co.*32, to the general rule in respect to the liability of an *innkeeper,*which has been followed ever since. It was there resolved, that if the guest deliver his horse to the hostler, and request that he be put to pasture, which is accordingly done, and the horse is stolen, the innholder is not responsible, not being in the common law sense of the term, *infra hospitium.*He is not to be regarded as an *490insurer for goods without the inn, that is for goods not within the curtilage. 8 *Co.*32 ; 2 *Kent’s Comm.*592; *Story on Bailment,*312 ; 21 *Wend.*284.

The sheep were put to pasture under the direction of the guest, which fact should have been regarded by the learned judge as bringing the case within the above exception. It would then have turned upon the question of negligence, which should have been put to the jury upon the facts disclosed.

New trial granted.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 51 

Supporting ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, a national celebration of after school 

programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 18, 2007 

Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BIDEN, 

Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BURR, Mr. CASEY, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. COCHRAN, Ms. 

COLLINS, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, 

Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KOHL, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. 

LEAHY, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. MIKULSKI, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. NELSON of 

Nebraska, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. INOUYE, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE, Mr. PRYOR, and Mr. CARPER) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Supporting ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, a national celebration 

of after school programs. 

Whereas high quality after school programs provide safe, 

challenging, engaging, and fun learning experiences to 

help children and youth develop their social, emotional, 

physical, cultural, and academic skills; 

Whereas high quality after school programs support working 

families by ensuring that the children in such families are 

safe and productive after the regular school day ends; 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•SCON 51 ATS 

Whereas high quality after school programs build stronger 

communities by involving the Nation’s students, parents, 

business leaders, and adult volunteers in the lives of the 

Nation’s youth, thereby promoting positive relationships 

among children, youth, families, and adults; 

Whereas high quality after school programs engage families, 

schools, and diverse community partners in advancing the 

well-being of the Nation’s children; 

Whereas ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’, a national celebration of 

after school programs held on October 18, 2007, promotes the critical importance of high quality after school 

programs in the lives of children, their families, and their 

communities; 

Whereas more than 28,000,000 children in the United States 

have parents who work outside the home and 14,300,000 

children in the United States have no place to go after 

school; and 

Whereas many after school programs across the United 

States are struggling to keep their doors open and their 

lights on: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress supports the goals and ideals 

3 of ‘‘Lights On Afterschool!’’ a national celebration of after 

4 school programs. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
[No. 20708-1-III.

Division Three.

December 31, 2002.]

#### Audrey L. Rice, *Appellant,*v. The State of Washington, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 00-2-01344-1, Heather K. Van Nuys, J., entered November 29, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, J., concurred in by Schultheis and Kurtz, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

DARLENE WILLIAMS HICKMAN, Appellant, vs. MARVIN L. HICKMAN, Respondent. No. 68468



# FILED
APR 0 1 2016

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is an appeal from a decree of divorce. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Charles J. Hoskin, Judge. When our initial review of the docketing statement and other documents before this court revealed potential jurisdictional defects, we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, it was not clear whether the decree resolved all of the claims and issues raised in the district court such that it was appealable as a final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(1). If the decree was a final judgment, it appeared that the notice of appeal was prematurely filed after a tolling motion was timely filed in the district court on July 9, 2015, but before the tolling motion was formally resolved, and that the tolling motion remained pending in the district court. 

### See NRAP 4(a)(6).

In response to our order, appellant asserts that the decree was the final judgment. She also appears to assert that the July 9, 2015, motion is not a tolling motion because motions for reconsideration do not toll the time to file a notice of appeal.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 0 

# - /CSO

# Ch 9-41,12. 4

",

Cherry J.

Assuming that the decree was the final judgment, the July 9, 2015, motion to alter or amend, or in the alternative for reconsideration— which also sought a new trial under NRCP 59—was a tolling motion. See NRAP 4(a)(4) (identifying a motion to alter or amend the judgment and a motion for a new trial as tolling motions); see also AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 585 245 P.3d 1190, 1195 (2010) (laying out circumstances under which a motion for reconsideration is considered a tolling motion). The motion was timely filed after service of notice of entry of the divorce decree on June 25, 2015. Appellant does not assert that the motion has been resolved and it appears from the documents before this court that the motion remains pending in the district court.' Accordingly, it appears that the notice of appeal was prematurely filed before entry of an order resolving the timely tolling motion and this court lacks jurisdiction. See NRAP 4(a)(6) ("A premature notice of appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction."). We thus

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

- 

# 7) 0e/wie Douglas

'Appellant represents that the motion was "vacated" via a minute order for lack of jurisdiction due to the pending appeal. Such a minute order is without effect. See Div. of Child and Family Servs. v. Eighth Judicial Din. Court, 120 Nev. 445, 92 P.3d 1239 (2004).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A ae 2cc: Hon. Charles J. Hoskin, District Judge, Family Court Division Ara H. Shirinian, Settlement Judge Thomas Michaelides Kainen Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(C)) 1947A •4IZ7P 3
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                           SPECIAL POWERS OF ATTORNEY



         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that I, Eugene E. Stone, IV, Director
of The Liberty Corporation, do hereby appoint Martha G. Williams and R. David
Black, or either of them, Special Attorney for me and in my name and on my
behalf to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K and any amendments thereto for
The Liberty Corporation to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for each fiscal year ended December
31, and generally to do and to perform all things necessary to be done in the
premises as fully and effectually in all respects as I could do if personally
present.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 7th day
of March, 1997.




                                        /s/  Eugene E. Stone, IV
                                        ----------------------------------
                                        Eugene E. Stone, IV
                                        Director, The Liberty Corporation
                                        A South Carolina Corporation


  
                                      69
[No. 26261-4-II.

Division Two.

October 25, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Thomas Lee McCulley, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 99-1-02911-1, Marywave Van Deren, J., entered July 26, 2000. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, C.J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Bridgewater, JJ.
#### General Electric Company, Respondent, *v.*New York Contract Purchase Corporation et al., Appellants.

Argued April 28, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*556
      *R. Randolph Hicks, Jay Leo Rothschild*and *Lloyd F. Thanhouser,*for appellants.

*Lowell Wadmond*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
#### § 2706.101 Purpose.

This part effectuates section 119 of the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Amendments of 1978, which amended section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities conducted by Executive agencies or the United States Postal Service.
#### PEARL ST SAV & TR CO v TRAYMORE REALTY CO et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10375.

Decided March 17, 1930

Baler, Hostetler & Sidlo, Cleveland, for Pearl St. Sav & Tr Co.

Nicola & Horn, N. D. Davis and John A. Alburn, all of Cleveland, for Realty Co et. Judges WILLIAMS and RICHARDS (6th Dist) sitting.

RICHARDS, J.

The mortgagee and the holder of the meeanic’s lien are entitled to have their mortgages and mechanic’s lien foreclosed and the real estate subjected to the satisfaction of the liens, and this should be done on principles of equity in the inverse order of the sales which have been made. In view of the language of the mortgage extending the benefits of all the provisions and conditions thereof to the successors and assigns of the parties, the right to have releases made inures to the benefit of the purchasers of the various lots.

It is urged by the plaintiff, under authority of Brown vs. Cleveland Trust Company, 10 O.C.C., N.S., 430, that the right to make payment of the sums fixed by the mortgage and secure a release of the premises conveyed can not exist after an action in foreclosure has been brought. Whatever the rule may be where such claim is made by the mortgagor, it appears to this court that purchases having been made on the faith of the right to have the various lotss purchased released upon payment of the amount stipulated in the mortgage, this right still exists in those who have made such purchases and are now ready, able and willing to make such payments. Vawter vs. Crafts, 41 Minn., 14; Taylor vs. Carter, 211 Mich. 365. Such offers were made informally in the case in the Court of Common Pleas and the amount to be paid should *335be the amount stipulated plus interest thereon from the time the offer was made in the Court of Common Pleas, but the amounts so to be paid must be paid into court within ten days from the entry of this decree. In order to better protect the rights of' the several interested parties, the sale should be made under 8623-120, GC the details as to upset price, advertising, etc., to be such as may be agreed upon by counsel, and if not so agreed upon, then such as may be fixed by the court. Provision should be made fore receiving separate bids upon the several lots fronting on Pleasant Valley Road and York Road. .

WILLIAMS, J. concurs.
[No. 49700-6-I.

Division One.

October 21, 2002.]

#### Alma Santos, et al., *Appellants,*v. Laurie Thornton, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 00-2-24387-1, Joan E. DuBuque, J., entered December 3, 2001. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12545]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Environmental Health 
Services Special Emphasis Panel, Contract NIH 00-26.
    Date: June 19, 2000.
    Time: 9 am to 12 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: NIEHS--East Campus, Building 4401, Conference Room 122, 
79 Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Linda K. Bass, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, NIEHS, PO Box 12233 EC-30, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27709, (919) 541-1307.


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.113, 
Biological Response to Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied 
Toxicological Research and Testing; 93.115 Biometry and Risk 
Estimation--Health Risks from Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS 
Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety Training; 93.143, NIEHS 
Superfund Hazardous Substances--Basic Research and Education; 
93.894, Resources and Manpower Development in the Environmental 
Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 4, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-12545 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.9

                          LANCASTER COLONY CORPORATION

            DESCRIPTION OF REGISTRANT'S EXECUTIVE BONUS ARRANGEMENTS

         Due to his responsibilities of supervising the operations of the
Company's Specialty Foods segment, the Company's Vice President of Development
is paid a bonus based on the product of a predetermined percentage applied to
the amount by which the segment's operating income for the fiscal year exceeds a
target level of income. The target level of income, in turn, is determined by
multiplying a fixed percentage by the fiscal year's average net assets of the
segment. The intent of the formula is to incentivize the manager to efficiently
utilize the net assets under his supervision. The Company's Chief Executive
Officer retains certain discretionary authority to modify the computation of
operating income and also vary the determined bonus by up to 5% based upon a
qualitative assessment of the manager's development. The bonus is paid in the
fiscal year following when it is earned.

         The Company's Chief Financial Officer is paid a bonus utilizing a
formula similar to that described above, except consolidated operating income
and net assets are utilized in the computation.

         As may be deemed appropriate, further adjustment of the computed
amounts may be made at the discretion of the Company's Compensation Committee.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7204
JEFFREY BOZEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus G. E. SLEMP; MAJOR BUNCH; T. J. GILLESPIE; S. K. YOUNG; T. C. BULLOCK; J. D. NETHERLAND, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-96-613-R) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 6, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Bozeman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant, a Virginia inmate, app eals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint forfailure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and agree that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Bozeman v. Slemp , No. CA-96-613-R (W.D. Va. July 29, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### § 37.33 Who is responsible for meeting the notice requirement with respect to service providers?

The Governor or the LWIA grant recipient, as determined by the Governor and as provided in that State's Methods of Administration, will be responsible for meeting the notice requirement provided in Sections 37.29 and 37.30 with respect to a State's service providers.
#### BRYANT v. WALKER, SUPT.

(Decided August 1, 1916.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Sharpe.

C. C. Nesmith, for appellant.

Coleman & Coleman, for appellee.

Pelham, P. J.

Affirmed on authority of *Walker, Supt., v. McCrary Co.,*197 Ala. 638, 73 South. 342.
#### INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION v LINK

Ohio Supreme Court

No 22008.

Decided March 19, 1930
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

T.J., Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee,
No. 2D22-2118
September 1, 2023 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Lawrence M. Lefler, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Caroline Joan S. Picart, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Natalia ReynaPimiento, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. SLEET, Chief Judge. T.J. challenges the trial court's juvenile disposition order in which the court found him guilty of committing the delinquent acts of minor in possession of a firearm (count one) and resisting arrest without violence (count two). T.J. argues, and the State concedes, that the trial court erred in imposing a $65 fee under section 939.185, Florida Statutes2

(2022), without a citation to a county ordinance. We affirm the disposition order in all respects; however, we remand to the trial court for the limited purpose of correcting the order assessing fines and costs to reflect the applicable county ordinance. See Summers v. State , 276 So. 3d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); see also Dibelka v. State , 326 So. 3d 835, 837-38 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). Affirmed and remanded with instructions. VILLANTI and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.