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



Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

I, Michael J. Hewitt, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Mobile Reach
International, 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 quarterly
report

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

4.     I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and

5.     I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls
over financial reporting.

| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ Michael J. Hewitt  
| |  |                        
| |  | Chief Executive Officer
| |  | December 12th, 2003
# C_2008007EN.01001001.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/10

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 419th meeting on 27 November 2006 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/F/38.638 — BR/ESBR

(2008/C 7/06)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount to ensure sufficient deterrent effect. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount to ensure sufficient deterrent effect.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the amounts of reduction of the fine based on the 2002 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the amounts of reduction of the fine based on the 2002 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

| 7. | The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.

---
Exhibit 32.1
------------


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                  ---------------------------------------------

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of Zomex  Distribution,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Peter Buckley,  President and Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ Peter Buckley
-------------------------------------
Peter Buckley
President and Chief Executive Officer


November 29, 2004
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Caesars Entertainment, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Wallace R. Barr, Chief Executive Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledgeand belief:

 

(1)        TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| Dated the 10th day of May 2005 |
|--------------------------------|
|                           |
|                           |
|                           | /S/ WALLACE R. BARR |   |
|                           | Wallace R. Barr |   |
|                           | President and Chief Executive Officer, |   |
|                           | Caesars Entertainment, Inc. |   |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 86 (Friday, May 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25314-25315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2193]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary


Delegation of Authority

    Notice is hereby given that I have delegated to the Assistant 
Secretary for Preparedness and Response the authorities vested in the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 319C-2, 319F, and 
319I of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, as it pertains to 
the functions assigned to the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and 
Response. These delegations to the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness 
and Response include the authority vested in the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services to continue the administration of any grants and 
contracts initially awarded by the Health Resources and Services 
Administration under sections 319C-1, 319C-2, 319F, and 319I of the 
Public Health Service Act. This delegation permits the Assistant 
Secretary for Preparedness and Response to administer grants and 
contracts under the terms and conditions of the initial awards.
    This authority may be redelegated. These delegations shall be 
exercised under the Department's policy on regulations and the existing 
delegation of authority to approve and issue regulations. This 
delegation excludes the authority to issue reports to Congress and to 
take final action to withhold funds from States.
    This delegation supersedes all prior delegations of authority to 
the Health Resources and Services Administration's officials to the 
extent that they are inconsistent with the provisions of this 
delegation.

[[Page 25315]]

    I have ratified any actions taken by the Assistant Secretary for 
Preparedness and Response, or any other Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Preparedness and Response officials, which, in effect, 
involved the exercise of this authority prior to the effective date of 
this delegation.
    This delegation is effective immediately.

    Dated: April 16, 2007.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-2193 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-37-M
SUPREME COURT.

#### Charles McGuire, plaintiff in error, agt. The People, defendant in error.

*First Department, General*Term,

October, 1874.

*When writ of error*frivolous— *examination of witness.*

Where the question put to a witness is a proper one, and no objection made as to the answer, it not tending to connect the plaintiff in error with the offense charged, the writ cannot be sustained.

. Where the cross-examination of a witness upon one subject has been unreasonably protracted, and a question is put which has no bearing upon the issue or upon the credit of the witness; the cross-examination may be closed, in the sound discretion of the court.

Writ of error to the court of general sessions, on a conviction for rape.

*William F.*Howe, for plaintiff in error.

*B. K. Phelps,*district attorney, for defendant in error.

Barrett, *J.*

The plaintiff in error was jointly indicted with one Campbell for rape. Upon the trial, a witness was asked what McGuire said in the police court, when the charge was made by the complainant. The witness answered that McGuire made no reply, but that Campbell did, in McGuire’s presence. He was then asked what Campbell said. Ho objection was interposed to this question, and the witness answered it. After the answer had been given, the prisoner’s-counsel stated that he objected “ to the conversation,” but did *518not state upon what grounds, nor did he ask to have the answer stricken out, or disregarded by the jury. The court remarked that the question (which had not been objected to) was competent, to which remark there was no exception. Thereupon, the same question was repeated by the district attorney, in another form, and objected to as leading, whereupon the question was withdrawn and put in proper form. When so put, no objection was interposed, nor any remark made as to the answer which followed.

Anything more frivolous than the appeal upon this'ground it would be difficult to conceive. The question itself was a proper one *(Kelly*agt. *The*People, 55 *N. Y.,*565); it was put and answered without objection" or exception, and the answer did not tend to connect McGuire with the offense charged, or to prejudice him in the slightest degree.

But one other point is made in the case, and it is equally frivolous. One of the witnesses for the prosecution, after having been cross-examined at great length upon a variety of collateral matters, was finally interrogated respecting his business that evening. Even this the court permitted, and the inquiry was not checked until it was evident that it was being unreasonably protracted. The question — which was finally excluded—“Who was the person you went to see there *%*” had no bearing upon the issue, or upon the credit’ of the witness.

How far such a line of cross-examination should be permitted is a matter resting entirely in the sound discretion of the court, and we think that.such discretion was wisely exercised in the present instance.

The conviction and judgment should be affirmed.

Davis, *P. J.,*and Daniels, J., concurred.
Exhibit 10.3
​
HERITAGE BANK OF ST. TAMMANY
​
___________________________________________________________________
​
AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO
TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH LISA HUGHES
​
___________________________________________________________________
​
This Amendment Number Two (the “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) entered into between Heritage Bank of St. Tammany (the “Bank”) and Lisa Hughes (the “Executive”) is made by the Bank and the Executive, effective as of August 16, 2020.
​
WHEREAS, the Agreement was entered effective as of February 16, 2017, and the term of the Agreement was subsequently extended until August 16, 2021; and
​
WHEREAS, the Bank and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement; and
​
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15(a) of the Agreement, the Agreement may be amended by an instrument in writing signed by the parties.
​
NOW, THEREFORE, this Amendment is hereby adopted as follows:
​
		1.
	Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the following sentence to the end of Section 2(a):


​
“Notwithstanding the foregoing, the term of this Agreement will continue until August 16, 2023, or such other time, as mutually agreed upon by the parties.”
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bank and the Executive have signed this Amendment this 16th day of June, 2020.
​
	​
	HERITAGE BANK OF ST. TAMMANY

	​
	​

	​
	By:
	/s/Jason Hunt

	​
	Name:
	Jason Hunt

	​
	Title:
	Chairman of the Compensation Committee

	​
	​

	​
	​

	​
	EXECUTIVE

	​
	​

	​
	/s/Lisa B Hughes

	​
	Lisa Hughes



​
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BERNICE SKEEN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:15-cv-11110 

v. District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow 

 Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER 

CORPORATION, 

 Defendant. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER ON THE FEBRUARY 10, 2016 STATUS CONFERENCE 

 Plaintiff filed a motion to compel on December 3, 2015. (DE 11.) On 

December 16, 2015, Defendant filed its response (DE 12) and Plaintiff filed a 

“Supplemental Motion to Produce” on February 1, 2016.1

 (DE 17.) This matter is 

scheduled for a hearing on February 18, 2016, and came before me for a telephonic 

status conference on February 10, 2016. 

 During the status conference, I indicated that I wished to see all photographs 

and videos relating to the incident described in Plaintiff’s complaint, including but 

not limited to video(s) captured by the outward-facing camera, at the February 18, 

                                                            

1

 The Court will construe Plaintiff’s “Supplemental Motion” as a reply. 

Accordingly, Defendant is not required to file a response. 

2:15-cv-11110-AJT-APP Doc # 23 Filed 02/10/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 113
2

2016 hearing for an in camera review if the parties cannot agree beforehand upon 

which such videos and photographs will demonstrate the extent of the incident, 

including impact forces on the rolling stock. 

 Counsel for Defendant represented that, as an officer of the court, she would 

obtain all such photographs and videos from her client and bring them to Court on 

the day of the hearing. Accordingly, the Court hereby orders that counsel for 

Defendant do so. 

 Prior to the hearing, the parties are encouraged to work out and stipulate to 

acceptable language for a protective order for the exchange of such information, 

lest the Court do so on its own initiative in a manner in which may be less 

palatable than that which the parties could work out on their own. 

 Finally, the parties need not abide by my practice guidelines governing 

discovery motions for the upcoming hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 10, 2016 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on February 10, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:15-cv-11110-AJT-APP Doc # 23 Filed 02/10/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 114
EXHIBIT 10.6

MICHAEL KRALL

PROMISSORY NOTE
Aug 1, 2000


$117,339.00

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, each as principal, jointly and
severally, promise(s) to pay to the order of INNOVATIVE MEDICAL SERVICES at El
Cajon, CA the sum of $117,339.00 DOLLARS with interest thereon from Aug 1, 2000,
at the rate of 6.0 percent per annum due and payable at July 31, 2001.
     The parties do not intend this note to obligate the signers of this note to
pay any money in excess of the legal rate of interest allowed by the laws of the
state of CA. If the signers do pay any money in excess of the legal rate of
interest allowed by the laws of the state of CA, the holder shall apply such
excess money to reduce the principal amount the signers owe the holder.
     Interest shall first be deducted from the payment, and any balance shall be
applied on principal.
     Principal and interest not paid when due shall draw interest at the rate of
10%percent per annum. Upon default in payment of any interest, or any
installment of principal, the whole amount then unpaid shall become immediately
due and payable at the option of the holder without notice. The undersigned, in
case of suit on this note, agrees to pay attorney's fees.
     Makers, endorsers and sureties waive demand of payment, notice of
nonpayment, protest and notice. Sureties, endorsers and guarantors agree to all
of the provisions of this note, and consent that the time or times of payment of
all or any part hereof may be extended after maturity, from time to time,
without notice.


/s/ Michael Krall                    August 1, 2000
-----------------                    --------------
Signature                            Date
[Crim. No. 3201.

Second Appellate District, Division Two.

June 8, 1939.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. NEAL MIROPOL, Appellant.

*298Goldman & Goldman for Appellant.

Earl Warren, Attorney-General, and Paul McCormick, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

WOOD, Acting P. J.

Defendant was charged with the violation of section 337a, subdivision 3, of the Penal Code. He was found guilty by a jury and appeals from the judgment of conviction.

Defendant’s contention that the verdict is not supported by the evidence is without merit. Evidence presented by the prosecution established that on December 2, 1938, defendant was receiving money to be wagered on horse races in the vicinity of the intersection of Logan Street and Sunset Boulevard in the city of Los Angeles. Police officers who were in close proximity to the intersection testified that several cars were parked adjacent to a garage and filling station; that defendant made visits to the occupants of the cars and then went to the garage. Defendant made several trips to one of the cars, the occupant of which being later identified as Guy Price. Defendant handed something into the car, after which he took a piece of paper from his pocket and made a notation upon it. The officers testified that they saw something pass which resembled money. After making the notation on the paper defendant walked back to the garage where the officers found several papers generally used in placing bets on horse races, among them a paper marked “National Scratch Sheet”. Defendant admitted that he was the owner of these papers. Although he stated that he had been without employ*299ment for about two months, he had about three hundred dollars on his person. Guy Price testified that he placed several bets with the defendant on the occasion in question, giving the names and numbers of the horses, and that he had given money to defendant for this purpose.

Defendant complains of the failure of the trial court to read to the jury a requested instruction which was a complete copy of subdivision 3 of section 337a of the Penal Code. The jury was fully informed in other instructions concerning the offense with which defendant was charged. He suffered no prejudice by the refusal of the court to set forth the entire language of the code subdivision.

Defendant also complains of the refusal of the trial court to give an instruction on the subject of accomplices. In this the court did not err. The witness Price was not an accomplice. He could not have been convicted of the offense for which defendant was on trial. Price did not “receive, hold or forward” money to be wagered on a horse race as contemplated by the penal statute in question. Moreover, the evidence was unquestionably sufficient to corroborate the testimony of Price.

Defendant’s claims of errors in the rulings of the trial court on the admissibility of evidence are without merit.

The judgment is affirmed.

McOomb, J., concurred.
#### § 169.331 Guards in hazardous locations.

Each exposed hazard, such as gears or machinery, must be properly protected with covers, guards, or rails.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### United States Parole Commission

# Agency Holding Meeting:

Department of Justice, United States Parole Commission.

# Date and Time:

11:30 a.m., Thursday, April 26, 2007.

# Place:

U.S. Parole Commission, 5550 Friendship Boulevard, 4th Floor, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815.

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters Considered:

                        The following matters will be considered during the                         *closed*                         portion of the Commission's Business Meeting:                    

Petitions for reconsideration involving four original jurisdiction cases pursuant to 28 CFR 2.27.

# Agency Contact:

Thomas W. Hutchison, Chief of Staff, United States Parole Commission, (301) 492-5990.

Dated: April 18, 2007.

Rockne Chickinell,

General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 07-2031 Filed 4-19-07; 8:44 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-31-M