alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31(a)**

I, Eric Montandon, certify that: 

1.     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB (“Report”) of WWA Group, Inc.; 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this 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 period presented in this 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 small business issuer and have: 

a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me 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 my 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 (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.     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 controls 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 controls over financial reporting. 

Date: May 14, 2007 

/s/ Eric Montandon

Eric Montandon, Chief Executive Officer 

**22**

----
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2015-3631

 Directorate Identifier: 2015NM060AD

A330-25-3534, R01 --- 10/23/2014

A340-25-4349, R01 --- 10/27/2014

A340-25-4217 --- 10/12/2004

A340-25-5046 --- 10/12/2004

A340-25-5046, R01 --- 5/11/2005

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
From: capugliese@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:41:26 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

charles pugliese

Naugatuck, CT 06770
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         3,555
<SECURITIES>                                   17,443
<RECEIVABLES>                                  821
<ALLOWANCES>                                   61
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               29,520
<PP&E>                                         9,634
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,237)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 41,052
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,544
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       18
<OTHER-SE>                                     38,490
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   41,052
<SALES>                                        1,324
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,468
<CGS>                                          1,297
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  14,331
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               45
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (11,799)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11,799)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,799)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.67)



</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD B. MELBYE, AKA Brent Melbye, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. ACCELERATED PAYMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant - Appellant. No. 12-57220 D.C. No. 3:10-cv-02040-IEG-JMA
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Irma E. Gonzalez, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 5, 2015 Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, W. FLETCHER, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Accelerated Payment Technologies (“AP T”) appeals the district court’s denial of its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. Reviewing the district court’s denial of APT’s motion de novo and the jury’s verdict for 

# FILED
MAR 06 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.substantial evidence, see EEOC v. Go Daddy Software, Inc. , 581 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2009), we affirm. The jury’s finding that APT breached an oral or implied-in-fact contract between Richard Melbye and Geoffrey Knapp for post-termination residual commissions is supported by substantial evidence. APT argues that the employee handbook was incorporated into the at-will employment agreement, and that the handbook precludes post-termination commissi ons. We are unpersuaded. The handbook was not incorporated into the em ployment agreement. But even if it were, the handbook and the employment agreement did not constitute a fully integrated contract because the handbook states that “[i]t does not contain the complete terms or conditions of any of the company’s current benefit plans and policies.” The jury could interpret the effect of the handbook and weigh extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent. See City of Hope Nat’l Med. Ctr. v. Genentech, Inc. , 43 Cal. 4th 375, 395 (2008) (“[W]hen, as here, ascertaining the intent of the parties at the time the contract was execu ted depends on the credibility of extrinsic evidence, that credibility determination a nd the interpretation of the contract are questions of fact that may properly be resolved by the jury.”). And the record contains ample evidence—including testimony of both Melbye and Knapp—that

2the handbook did not preclude the post-termination residual commissions to which they had agreed. Nor did the Change of Control Agr eement supersede the post-termination commissions contract. The Change of C ontrol Agreement states that it does not “prevent or limit” Melbye’s “continuing or future participation in any benefit, bonus, incentive or other plan or program provided by the Corporation.” And, again, the record contains ample evidence that Melbye and Knapp did not intend any conflict between the Change of Cont rol Agreement and their post-termination commissions contract. AFFIRMED.

3
#### C. S. Goss & Company, Appellant, *v.*Clayton S. Goss, Respondent.

*Goss & Co.*v. *Goss,*146 App. Div. 879, affirmed.

(Argued February 10, 1913;

decided February 25, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first, judicial department, entered July 14, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon the report of a referee in an action by a corporation against its former president to recover moneys overpaid through his alleged negligence.

*Henry Escher, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Frank H. Platt*and *Livingston Platt*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Willard Bartlett, Chase, Cuddeback and Hogan, JJ. Taking no part: Miller, J.
Case No. 14,167.

#### TREMAIN v. AMORY.

[Cited in First Nat. Bank of Hannibal v. Smith, 6 Fed. 216. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accisible.]
From: djlinebacker@frontier.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:12:41 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Dennis Leinbach

Fort Wayne, IN 46818
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Fernando FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-50369.

D.C. No. CR-98-00755-RMT.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 9, 2001.*

Decided July 19, 2001.

Before KOZINSKI, T.G. NELSON and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Luis Fernando Flores appeals his guilty plea conviction and 46-month sentence for illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We vacate and remand for further proceedings.

Flores contends that his guilty plea and conviction should be vacated because the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1) by failing to properly advise him of the maximum applicable penalties, the effects of supervised release and the applicability of the Sentencing Guidelines. The government concedes that the district court did not follow the Rule, but argues that the errors were harmless.

We review de novo whether the district court complied with the requirements of Rule 11 when accepting a defendant’s guilty plea. *United States v. King,*246 F.3d 1166, 1173-74 (9th Cir.2001). *732“Any errors in a Rule 11 hearing are reversible unless shown to be harmless.” *Id.*

Here, Flores was not correctly advised of: (1) his maximum potential penalty; (2) how his sentence would be calculated; and (3) what continuing liabilities he would face after his term of imprisonment ended. Such errors were not “minor or technical violationfs] of Rule 11,” *United States v. Graibe,*946 F.2d 1428, 1433 (9th Cir.1991), and thus Flores’ guilty plea and conviction must be vacated and the case remanded so that he may enter a new plea. *See United States v. Gastelum,*16 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir.1994) (“[W]e must reverse if the violation would nullify or dilute important Rule 11 safeguards.”) (internal quotations omitted).

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Amendment No. 2012-2 to the Sunoco Partners LLC Special Executive Severance Plan


 Exhibit 10.1 
 SUNOCO PARTNERS LLC 
 SPECIAL EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE PLAN 

Amendment No. 2012-2 

1. The beginning of the Plan’s definition of “Change in Control” is amended effective October 5, 2012: 

“ ‘Change in Control’ means, and shall be deemed to have occurred upon the occurrence of one or more of the following
events on or before October 5, 2012:” 
 2. A new sentence is added to the end of Section 2.2 of the Plan effective
October 5, 2012: 
 “Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Executive Employee shall become a Participant in this Plan after
October 5, 2012.”
April 24, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

SEASCAPE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant

NO. 14-12-00058-CV V.

INTERNATIONAL RISK CONTROL, LLC, Appellee

____________________

Today the Court heard appellant=s motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment 

signed by the court below on December 5, 2012. Having considered the motion and 

found it meritorious, we order the appeal filed by Seascape Owners Association, Inc. 

DISMISSED. The appeal filed by International Risk Control, LLC remains pending 

under this court’s appellate case number 14-12-00016-CV.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

SEASCAPE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

We further order the mandate be issued immediately.
ex101.htm










PROMISSORY NOTE


 









 



	 $ USD 	 	 Date:                                     , 2012
	 	 	 





                                                                       




FOR VALUE RECEIVED, STEVIA AGRITECH CORP. (the "Promissor") hereby promises to pay to COACH CAPITAL LLC, or such other holder for the time being hereof (the "Holder”), the principal amount of                      ($     ) in United States currency (the "Principal Amount") ON DEMAND, and to pay interest thereon at the rate of ten per cent (10%) per annum calculated annually from                       , 2012 on so much of the Principal Amount as shall be outstanding from time to time.


 


Default in paying the Principal Amount or any interest shall, at the option of the Holder, render the entire balance then owing hereunder at once due and payable. Time shall be of the essence of this Note. Extension of time for payment of all or any part of the amount owing hereunder at any time or times, or failure of the Holder to enforce any of the rights or remedies hereunder, shall not release the Promissor and shall not constitute a waiver of the rights of the Holder to enforce such rights and remedies thereafter.


 


Should suit be brought to recover on this Note, the Promissor promises to pay reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in addition to the amount found to be due on this Note.


 


The Holder may, at its option, convert all or any part of the indebtedness owing under this Note into securities of the Promissor at such rate as that being offered to investors at the time of conversion.




 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Promissor has executed this Note on                                 , 2012.







 


    /s/            


STEVIA AGRITECH CORP.
No. 65990.

#### Bonwit Teller, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/20333 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issue is the same in all material respects as that tbe subject of *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), and tbe record showing that tbe merchandise consists of knit nylon gloves similar in use to silk gloves, tbe claim of tbe plaintiff was sustained.
EX-99.B11-ufconsnt

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the use in Post-Effective Amendment No. 119 to Registration
Statement #2-21867 of our report dated February 7, 1997 appearing in the
Statement of Additional Information, which is a part of such Registration
Statement, and to the reference to us under the caption "Financial Highlights"
appearing in the Prospectuses, which also are a part of such Registration
Statement.



Deloitte & Touche LLP
Kansas City, Missouri
March 26, 1997
Exhibit 99.3


                            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 Booth Creek Ski Holdings,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  as the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company,  hereby  certifies  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          Section 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 results of operations
          of the Company.


March 17, 2003


                                          By:     /s/ ELIZABETH J. COLE
                                            ------------------------------------
                                                      Elizabeth J. Cole
                                                 Executive Vice President and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
From: Letscrop@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:09:26 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Penny Bailey

Spotsylvania, VA 22551
No. 69800.

protests 62/4790-12582, etc. (Chicago).

#### National Carloading Corporation et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of earphones similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 69019, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.