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

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Uziel Frydman, certifythat:

 

1.        I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sherwood Brands, Inc. (the “Registrant”);

 

2.        Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.        Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4.        The Registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and we have:

 

(a)      designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)     evaluated the effectivenessof the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation;

 

(c)      disclosed in this report anychange in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.        The Registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):

 

(a)      all significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theRegistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

(b)     any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

----

 
| Date: June 11, 2004 |
|---------------------|
|                |
|                |
|                | /s/ Uziel Frydman |
|                | Uziel Frydman |
|                | Chairman, President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[Proposed] Order Granting Nunc Pro Tunc Extension of Time to Serve Discovery Responses

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIUS LEE JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

CIV S-04-0983 LKK GGH P

ORDER GRANTING M.

ARMSTRONG’S REQUEST FOR

SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO

SERVE INTERROGATORY

RESPONSES

The Court having considered defendant Armstrong’s request for a second extension of

time to serve responses to plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories, and good cause having been

found:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Defendant Armstrong’s request for a second extension

of time to serve interrogatory responses is granted. Defendant Armstrong shall have, to and

including, November 1, 2005, nunc pro tunc, to serve responses to plaintiff’s first set of

interrogatories.

DATED: 12/12/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

_____________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

jack0983.po2.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-00983-LKK -GGH Document 52 Filed 12/12/05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.15

                              Katy Industries, Inc.
                   Executive Officer Compensation Arrangements

The base salaries as of April 11, 2005 for the named executive  officers of Katy
Industries, Inc. (the "Company") as approved at the April 8, 2005 meeting of the
Compensation Committee of the Company's Board of Directors, are as follows:

         C. Michael Jacobi       $565,000
         Amir Rosenthal          $315,000
         David S. Rahilly        $250,000
         David C. Cooksey        $170,000
         Michael C. Paul         $169,700

As part of his or her annual compensation, each of the named executive officers
is also eligible for a cash bonus in accordance with the terms of the Katy
Industries, Inc. Executive Bonus Plan. In addition to the foregoing, the Company
pays automobile and other allowances, certain club memberships, all or a portion
of the premiums for group term life insurance policies for each of the executive
officers and contributes matching amounts to each of the executives under Katy's
401(k) plan.
## IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________



### m 99-11106

_______________



### T HEDRO 

### D IGGLES AND 

### D EBRA 

### A NDERSON 

### , Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS



### B OEING 

### D EFENSE 

### & S PACE 

### SS I RVING 

### C O 

### ., Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (3:97-CV-2524-R)

_________________________ November 14, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The plaint iffs appeal only the a ward ofattorneys’ fees. Having reviewed the briefs, the

rec o rd, and the applicable law, and having heard and considered the oral arguments of counsel, we conclude that the distr ict court committed no reversible error.

Irrespective of whether the court was correct in assigning its reasons for the assessment

o f fees, it is not reasonably deniable that t he plaintiff-appe l lants were guilty of gross misconduct and were subject to sanction on that ground at least. The judgment, accordingly, is AFFIRMED. **

* Pursuan t to 5 T H C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited c ircumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5.4. ** Judge Jolly would reverse as to Anderson.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from Essex Portfolio, L.P.
report for the three months ended March 31, 1999
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          17,494
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,526
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,845
<PP&E>                                         971,051
<DEPRECIATION>                                  83,866
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 955,411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,539
<BONDS>                                        384,778
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                2
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     388,852
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   955,411
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,890
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,125
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,141
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,934
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,690
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,690
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,544
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7394

ALEXANDER CAMERON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, Greensville Correctional Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-1038-AM)

Submitted: May 13, 1999 Decided: May 19, 1999

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Cameron, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Cameron seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See Cameron v. Warden, No. CA-98-

1038-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 10, 1998). We deny Cameron’s motions for

the production of documents and to supplement the record on appeal.

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
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID BACK,

NO. CIV. S-4-5 LKK/CMK

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,

INC.,

Defendant.

 /

The court is in receipt of defendant Allstate's objections to

plaintiff's proposed trial exhibits. Within the objections,

counsel asserts that (1) in violation of the court's pretrial

order, plaintiff's counsel served only a copy of his exhibit list

and failed to provide copies of the thirteen exhibits proffered at

Pretrial; and (2) that plaintiff's exhibit contains an additional

thirty two exhibits not included in the exhibit list attached to

the court's Pretrial Order.

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-00005-LKK -CMK Document 91 Filed 10/19/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that:

1. If he has not already done so, counsel for plaintiff is

ordered to immediately SERVE upon counsel for defendant complete

copies of the thirteen exhibits listed in Attachment "C" to the

court's Pretrial Order and file proof of service of same; and

2. Counsel for plaintiff is ordered to SHOW CAUSE in writing

not later than October 21, 2005 at 4:30 p.m. why the additional

thirty two exhibits listed in the amended exhibit list attached to

defendant's objections should not be STRICKEN as untimely

designated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 19, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-00005-LKK -CMK Document 91 Filed 10/19/05 Page 2 of 2
---

Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Donovan Jones, Chief Executive Officer of CounterPath
Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the
three months ended October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (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 results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Donovan
JonesDonovan
JonesPresident and Chief Executive Officer

December 14, 2010

I, David Karp, Chief Financial Officer of CounterPath
Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the
three months ended October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (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 results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ David
KarpDavid Karp Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
Secretary

December 14, 2010

---
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.2




September 9, 2016


Each of the 2010 - 2016 LTIP Award Agreements and their associated Non-Compete Agreements are clarified and amended as follows: 


Nothing in this Agreement (1) prohibits or impedes Employee from reporting possible violations of federal law or regulation to any governmental agency or entity (including but not limited to the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Congress, and any agency Inspector General), from making other disclosures that are protected under the whistleblower provisions of federal law or regulation, or from receiving a monetary award from the SEC related to participation in an SEC investigation or proceeding, or (2) requires Employee to obtain prior authorization of Norfolk Southern Corporation to make any such reports or disclosures or to notify Norfolk Southern Corporation of such reports or disclosures.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4453 

To require the United States Postal Service to implement recommendations 

from the Inspector General of the United States Postal Service for 

decreasing instances of delayed mail and improving staffing and training, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2024 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the United States Postal Service to implement 

recommendations from the Inspector General of the 

United States Postal Service for decreasing instances 

of delayed mail and improving staffing and training, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural Mail Delivery 

5 Improvement Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4453 IS

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR THE POSTAL SERVICE TO IM2 PLEMENT CERTAIN RECOMMENDATIONS OF 

3 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. 

4 Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 

5 of this Act, the United States Postal Service shall review 

6 and, to the extent practicable, implement the rec7 ommendations of the Inspector General of the United 

8 States Postal Service with respect to delayed mail, staff9 ing, and training in the report by the Office of the Inspec10 tor General of the United States Postal Service entitled 

11 ‘‘Delivery in Northern Minnesota: Audit Report’’ (24– 

12 048–R24), dated May 6, 2024. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
(Reap. Dec. 10718)

#### Jacky Products Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 976381.

*512(Decided April 15, 1964)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement involves certain plastic baby pants, exported from Haiti and entered at the port of New York.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the articles in question is ■constructed value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. .54165), and that such statutory value therefor is 0.3964 per dozen, :and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Preview**
 
1997:SummerFall
1998:SummerFallOtono
2004:Federal Register
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.9018:
Item Number:0507-H-22 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000557009
 
February 12, 2020
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo*, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

                    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of                           ( print page 8734)                        Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at                     *www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​*.                

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 13, 2007.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City**                     (Donna J. Ward, Assistant Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:                

*1. Spalding City Corporation*, Omaha, Nebraska; to retain voting shares of Spalding City Insurance Agency, Spalding, Nebraska, and thereby continue to engage in general insurance activities in small towns, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(11)(iii)(A) of Regulation Y.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 21, 2007.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc.E7-3246 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IMPRIMIS INTERNATIONAL INC. CASE NO. CIV S-04-1297 FCD/DAD

Plaintiff,

ORDER VACATING SUBSTITUTION

vs. OF COUNSEL

ROBERT B. FRAIDENBURGH, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

On June 2, 2005 defendant’s counsel, Mr. Shawn Krogh,

submitted a substitution of counsel for court approval. On

June 6, 2005 the substitution was approved and the order was

served on all parties. 

However, after further review by the court the order

was issued in error. The substitution of counsel does not

comply with Local Rule 83-182(d) which requires a noticed

motion to withdraw in these circumstances which defendant

will be left in propria persona. 

Accordingly, the order of substitution is VACATED. 

Defendant’s counsel, Mr. Shawn Krogh, shall bring a properly

///

Case 2:04-cv-01297-FCD-DAD Document 22 Filed 06/07/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

noticed motion in accordance with Local Rule 83-182 and 

78-230 seeking withdrawal of counsel of record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:June 7, 2005

/s Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01297-FCD-DAD Document 22 Filed 06/07/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 23.2.b


                                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-18139) of Kansas City Power & Light Company
(a wholly-owned subsidiary of Great Plains Energy Incorporated) of our report
dated February 5, 2002, except with respect to Note 13, as to which the date is
May 22, 2002, and except with respect to the to the 2001 transitional
disclosures relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 142 as described in Note 6, as to which the date is February 21,
2003, relating to the financial statements of Kansas City Power & Light Company,
which appears in this Form 10-K. We also hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the above named registration statements of our report dated
February 5, 2002 relating to the financial statement schedule of Kansas City
Power & Light Company, which also appears in this Form 10-K.

                                                  /s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                                     PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Kansas City, Missouri
February 28, 2003