alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT  31. CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas Hagan, Chief Financial Officer , certify that:

     1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report  on Form  10-QSB  of  Suncoast
Naturals, 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. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the 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 others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
         b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls
and  procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the  filing  date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
         c)  Presented  in this  quarterly  report  our  conclusions  about  the
effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

     5. The registrant's other certifying  officers and I have disclosed,  based
on our most  recent  evaluation,  to the  registrant's  auditors  and the  audit
committee  of  the  registrant's  board  of  directors  (or  persons  performing
theequivalent functions):
         a) All significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
         b) Any fraud,  whether or not  material,  that  involves  management or
other  employees  who  have a  significant  role  in the  registrant's  internal
controls; and

     6. The registrant's other certifying  officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Dated: 12/13/04           /s/ THOMAS HAGAN
                        -----------------------
                        Thomas Hagan
                        Chief Financial Officer
No. 49691.

#### Protests 56808-K, etc., of International Hat Co. et al. (St. Louis).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The testimony definitely showed that certain of the items are not bleached. In accordance therewith those items described on the invoice as “Hinoki,” “Paribuntal,” “Sisal Hemp,” or “Toquilla Fiber,” with or without qualifying words or numerals, were held dutiable at only 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1), as claimed.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09

- 22

- 00164

- CV

__________________

IN THE INTEREST OF B.B.C.

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 317th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F

- 239,508

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
On Ma rch 2 1 , 202 2 , the trial court signed a judgment terminating the parental rights of G.V. to his child, B.B.C. On May 23 , 202 2 , G

. V . filed a notice of appeal. We questioned our jurisdiction but G.V. did not file a response. An appeal is accelerated in a case wh ere the trial court ordered termination of parental rights. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 109.002, 263.405(a); see also Tex. R. App. P. 28.4. Accordingly, a notice of appeal is due twenty days after the trial court signs the final judgment. See Tex. R. App. P . 26.1(b), 28.1(b). The appellant has not shown that he filed a notice of appeal within the time authorized for perfecting an2 accelerated appeal or for requesting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b), 26.3. Therefore , we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM

Submitted on July 13, 2022 Opinion Delivered July 14, 2022 Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
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

          - [AAG/A Order No. 007-2007] 

                    Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the Department of Justice (DOJ) is removing a published notice of a Privacy Act system of records: the Deputy Attorney General's (DAG) “Miscellaneous Attorney Personnel Records System, JUSTICE/DAG-011,” last published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 21, 1985 at 50 FR 42613.                 

                    The information contained within this system of records is now covered by two applicable notices of systems of records of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM): “General Personnel Records, OPM/GOVT-1,” last published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on June 19, 2006 at 71 FR 35342; and “Records of Adverse Actions, Performance Based Reduction in Grade and Removal Actions, and Termination of Probationers, OPM/GOVT-3,” last published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on June 19, 2006 at 71 FR 35342, 35350. The DAG “Miscellaneous Attorney Personnel Records System” records are also covered by a Department-wide system notice, “Personnel Investigation and Security Clearance Records for the Department of Justice, DOJ-006,” last published in full text in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 24, 2002 at 67 FR 59864, and amended in part on November 10, 2004 at 69 FR 65224.                 

Therefore, the notice of “Miscellaneous Attorney Personnel Records System, JUSTICE/DAG-011” is removed from the Department's listing of Privacy Act systems of records notices, effective on the date of publication of this notice. 

Dated: March 6, 2007. 

Lee J. Lofthus, 

Assistant Attorney General for Administration.

[FR Doc. E7-4776 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-PB-P
No. 61896.

#### Elvic Import Corporation et al. *v.*United States,

protests 185949-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk veils or veilings similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Elvic Import Corp.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 13, C. D. 1837), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 10.45

AMENDMENT TO THE

WEBLOYALTY HOLDINGS, INC.

2005 EQUITY AWARD PLAN

THIS AMENDMENT (“Amendment”) to the Webloyalty Holdings, Inc. 2005 Equity Award Plan is made as of April 1, 2014. 

WHEREAS, Affinion Group Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Holdings”), currently maintains the Webloyalty Holdings, Inc. 2005 Equity Award Plan (the “Plan”); 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 16 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of Holdings (the “Board”) may amend the Plan or any portion thereof at any time; and

WHEREAS, capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, that, Section 7(c) of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

“Vesting, Option Period and Expiration.  Options shall vest and become exercisable in such manner and on such date or dates determined by the Committee and shall expire after such period as may be determined by the Committee (the “Option Period”); provided, however, that notwithstanding any vesting dates set by the Committee, the Committee may, in its sole discretion, accelerate the exercisability of any Option, which acceleration shall not affect the terms and conditions of such Option other than with respect to exercisability.  If an Option is exercisable in installments, such installments or portions thereof which become exercisable shall remain exercisable until the Option expires.”

RESOLVED, that this Amendment shall, as of and from the execution date set forth above, be read and construed with the Plan and be treated as a part thereof.  The terms of the Plan except as amended by this Amendment are ratified and confirmed and the Plan as amended by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.

[Signature Page Follows]

 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed as of the date first set forth above.

 


	
 
	
AFFINION GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By:
	
/s/ Todd Siegel

	
 
	
Name:
	
Todd Siegel

	
 
	
Title:
	
CEO
No. 57327.

protests 932312-G, etc. (New York).

#### Bridges Neumer & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*454Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

When this case was called for trial, it was submitted on the same basis as the submission in Abstract 57282, namely, that the right to move to reopen or to set aside the submission was abandoned. An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protests were overruled. *(T. M. Duche & Sons*v. *United States,*39 C. C. P. A. 186, C. A. D. 485, certiorari denied, *T. M. Duche & Sons, Inc.*v. *United States,*344 U. S. 830, followed.)
# C_2007062EN.01000101.xml

| 16.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 62/01)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 9.2.2007 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 823/06 |
| Member State | Netherlands |
| Region | Overijssel |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | BioEnergy Twente |
| Legal basis | Enkelvoudig programmeringsdocument voor de structurele bijstandsverlening van de Gemeenschap in de onder de doelstelling vallende regio Oost-Nederland (beschikking van de Commissie van 6.8.2001, C(2001) 2056). Subsidieregeling duurzame energie 2003. |
| Type of measure | Individual aid |
| Objective | Environmental protection |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: EUR 1,45 million |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration (period) | — |
| Economic sectors | Energy |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Provincie Overijssel |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

9.2.2007

Reference number of the aid

N 823/06

Member State

Netherlands

Region

Overijssel

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

BioEnergy Twente

Legal basis

Enkelvoudig programmeringsdocument voor de structurele bijstandsverlening van de Gemeenschap in de onder de doelstelling vallende regio Oost-Nederland (beschikking van de Commissie van 6.8.2001, C(2001) 2056). Subsidieregeling duurzame energie 2003.

Type of measure

Individual aid

Objective

Environmental protection

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 1,45 million

Intensity

—

Duration (period)

—

Economic sectors

Energy

Name and address of the granting authority

Provincie Overijssel

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---
No. 51732.

#### Protest 118662-K of Paramount Distillers, Inc. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issue» herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Somerset*(33 C. C. P. A. 138, C. A. D. 328), and that a quantity of liquor amounting to 10 percent or more of the total contents of barrels numbered 8, 27, 74, 109,. 140, 148, 156, 172, 182, and 189, was lost in transit from the port of exportation to the port of destination due to breakage, leakage, or damage. In accordance therewith it was held that an allowance should have been made for the loss appearing upon the gauger’s return as verified by the affidavit of the importer. The protest was sustained to this extent.
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

DANIEL W. FAERFERS and KATJA

FAERFERS,

NO. CIV. S 04-2690 MCE PAN

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CAVIAR CREATOR, INC., a Nevada

Corporation, individually and

as successor to CAVIAR

CREATOR, INC., an Oregon

Corporation,

Defendants.

_____________________________

CAVIAR CREATOR, INC., a 

Nevada Corporation,

Counterclaimant/

Cross-Complainant,

v.

DANIEL W. FAERFERS, an 

individual; KATJA FAERFERS,

an individual; SINCLAIR WILSON,

an unknown business entity;

Counter-defendants/

Cross-defendants.

Case 2:04-cv-02690-TLN-EFB Document 69 Filed 10/18/05 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff Daniel W. Faerfers filed a motion seeking a

protective order that he not be required to travel from Germany

to the Eastern District of California for his deposition.

Plaintiff claimed that requiring him to travel that distance for

his deposition would cause him an undue hardship. 

On October 7, 2005, this Court issued a protective order in

accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(7)

mandating that Daniel Faerfers’ deposition be taken by telephonic

or other electronic means. See Mem. and Order, Oct. 7, 2005. 

Caviar Creator filed a motion for reconsideration and the

matter was heard at 9:00 a.m. on October 17, 2005. Counsel for

plaintiff Daniel Faerfers and defendant Caviar Creator, Inc. and

cross-defendant Sinclair Wilson were present for oral argument.

After consideration of the papers filed by the parties in

support of and in opposition to the motion as well as oral

argument presented at the hearing, the Court does not find that

requiring Daniel Faerfers to personally appear at his deposition

in the Eastern District of California will cause him an undue

hardship. 

///

//

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02690-TLN-EFB Document 69 Filed 10/18/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The

Court vacates that order issued October 7, 2005 and hereby orders

that Daniel Faerfers personally appear for deposition in

Sacramento, California on November 7, 2005 at the previously

noticed time and location.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

October 17, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02690-TLN-EFB Document 69 Filed 10/18/05 Page 3 of 3
<Page>

                                                                    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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned principal executive officer
of RefcoFund Holdings, LLC, the general partner (the "General Partner") of S&P
Managed Futures Index Fund, LP (the "Fund"), and principal financial officer of
the General Partner hereby certifies that:

(1)          the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q the Fund for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated: December 1, 2005            /s/ Richard C. Butt
                                    ---------------------------------------
                                    Richard C. Butt
                                    President
                                    (principal executive officer)
                                    RefcoFund Holdings, LLC
                                    General Partner

                                    /s/ Eric A. Simonsen
                                    ---------------------------------------
                                    Eric A. Simonsen
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    (principal financial and accounting officer)
                                    RefcoFund Holdings, LLC
                                    General Partner

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Fund for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
**Exhibit 21**

Subsidiaries 

PrimeEnergy Management Corporation, a New York corporation 100% owned byPrimeEnergy Corporation 

Prime Operating Company, a Texas corporation 100% owned by PrimeEnergy Corporation 

Eastern Oil Well Service Company, a West Virginia corporation 100% owned by PrimeEnergy Corporation 

Southwest Oilfield Construction Company, an Oklahoma corporation, 100% owned by PrimeEnergy Corporation 

E O W S Midland Company, a Texas corporation, 100% owned by PrimeEnergy Corporation 

Prime Offshore L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company 90% owned by PrimeEnergy Corporation 

Chase Energy L.L.C., a Texas Limited Liability Company, 50% owned by PrimeEnergy Corporation
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v THEODORE E. BARBEN, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

14 USCMA 198, 33 CMR 410

No. 16,896

August 16, 1963

■ *Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Herrod*and *Captain Charles W. Schiesser*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Francis M. Cooper*and *First Lieutenant William L. Leonard*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The accused originally pleaded guilty to a charge of wrongful appropriation, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, 10 USC § 921. While testifying in mitigation and extenuation, he made statements inconsistent with that plea, and the law officer set it aside, declaring a mistrial to which the defense agreed.

Thereafter, accused was arraigned upon the same charge and specification before another court-martial and pleaded not guilty. After the prosecution had offered its evidence and rested, accused elected to testify in his own defense. On cross-examination, trial counsel questioned accused as to the admissions of guilt which he made to the law officer at the earlier trial during a preliminary inquiry into the providence of his plea. Such cross-examination was prejudicially erroneous. United States v Daniels, 11 USCMA 52, 28 CMR 276; United States v Stivers, 12 USCMA 315, 30 CMR 315; Kercheval v United States, 274 US 220, 71 L ed 1009, 47 S Ct 582 (1927).

The decision of the board of review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army. A rehearing may be ordered.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v WILLIAM I. TERRY, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

15 USCMA 221, 35 CMR 193

No. 18,208

February 5, 1965

*Colonel Joseph L. Chalk, Lieutenant Colonel Jacob Hagopian,*and *Captain Beverly B. Bates*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel Edwin G. Schuck, Lieutenant Colonel Francis M. Cooper,*and *First Lieutenant Richard J. Andriolo*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Pee Curiam:

Accused’s unauthorized absence from his organization for a period of nearly eighteen months resulted in his trial by general court-martial for violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 886. Upon his plea of guilty, accused was convicted as charged, and sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for six months, forfeiture of fifty dollars per month for the same period, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. The convening authority approved, and a board of review in the office of The Judge Advocate General of the Army affirmed the findings and sentence. Thereafter, we granted accused’s petition for review pursuant to Article 67 (b) (3), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 867.

After proper inquiry to insure that accused’s guilty plea was providently and voluntarily entered, the same was accepted. No evidence was presented on the merits, and matters pertinent to sentence were then received by the court-martial. Thereafter, the members of the court arrived at findings and sentence in the same closed session.

Review of the record discloses that the situation presented here is substantially identical to that involved in United States v Trotter, 15 USCMA 218, 35 CMR 190, this day decided. Our opinion in that case is controlling here.

Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.