alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### **Exhibit31.1**

##### ** **

##### **CERTIFICATION**

 

I,John B. Carrington, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Websense, Inc.;

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

(b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date:  | March 12,  2004 |   |                    |
|--------|----------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |                 |   |                    |
|   |                 |   |                    |
|   |                 | By:    | /s/ JOHN B. CARRINGTON  |   |
|   |                 |   | John B. Carrington      |
|   |                 |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
# C_2007310EN.01003701.xml

| 20.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/37

---

Corrigendum to corresponding values of the thresholds of Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 301 of 13 December 2007
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 301 of 13 December 2007

(2007/C 310/12)

On page 1, the introductory sentence should read as follows:

‘The corresponding values in the national currencies other than euro of the thresholds of Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1422/2007 (1), are the following:

---

(1)  OJ L 317, 5.12.2007, p. 34.’

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andre Floyd, Also Known as Reggie Williams, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 464]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.), rendered June 19, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of l1⁄2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, which *264we previously reviewed on the People’s appeal from the trial court’s order setting aside the verdict for legal insufficiency (176 AD2d 554, *lv denied*79 NY2d 827). The issues raised by defendant concerning his larcenous intent and the credibility of the complainant were properly placed before the jury, and we find no reason to disturb its determination *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.
- 498 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. GALVAN

Cite as 306 Neb. 498

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. 

Braden M. Galvan, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed July 17, 2020. Nos. S‐19‐623, S‐19‐624.

supplemental opinion

Appeal from the District Court for Hall County: Mark J. 

Young, Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled.

Gerard A. Piccolo, Hall County Public Defender, for 

appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Melissa R. 

Vincent for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the 

appellee, State of Nebraska, concerning our opinion in State v. 

Galvan, 305 Neb. 513, 941 N.W.2d 183 (2020).

We overrule the motion, but modify the opinion as follows:

In the analysis section, under the subheading “Plain Error,” 

we withdraw the first two sentences of the fifth paragraph, 

including footnotes 24 and 25. State v. Galvan, 305 Neb. at 

521, 941 N.W.2d at 190.

The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.

Former opinion modified.

Motion for rehearing overruled.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

07/23/2020 12:08 AM CDT
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September30, 2019 (the “Report”) of Oxford Square Capital Corp. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Bruce L. Rubin, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Registrant. /s/ Bruce L. RubinName: Bruce L. RubinDate:November1, 2019
Before the Third Division,

December 28, 1939

No. 42923.

#### Protest 839207-G of A. W. Fenton Co. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Boxes the same as those passed upon in *Fenton*v. *United States*(1 Cust. Ct. 151, C. D. 40) were held dutiable at *33%*percent under paragraph 412 as claimed. The protest was overruled as to all other merchandise.
# C_2007043EN.01000301.xml

| 27.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 43/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 43/3

---

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 43/03)

| Date of adoption of the decision | — |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of the aid | N 576/06 |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | Friuli-Venezia-Giulia |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Aiuti alle grandi imprese industriali per investimenti per la tutela dell'ambiente |
| Legal basis | Delibera della Giunta Regionale n. 1805 de 28.7.2006«Docup Obiettivo 2 2000-2006 — Asse 2 — Misura 2.6 Aiuti alle grandi imprese, Azione 2.6.2. Aiuti alle grandi imprese industriali per investimenti per la tutela dell'ambiente». |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | Environmental protection |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: EUR 2,08 million |
| Intensity | 45 % |
| Duration | 1.11.2006-31.12.2008 |
| Economic sectors | Manufacturing industry |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Regione Friuli-Venezia-Giulia |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

—

Reference number of the aid

N 576/06

Member State

Italy

Region

Friuli-Venezia-Giulia

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Aiuti alle grandi imprese industriali per investimenti per la tutela dell'ambiente

Legal basis

Delibera della Giunta Regionale n. 1805 de 28.7.2006«Docup Obiettivo 2 2000-2006 — Asse 2 — Misura 2.6 Aiuti alle grandi imprese, Azione 2.6.2. Aiuti alle grandi imprese industriali per investimenti per la tutela dell'ambiente».

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

Environmental protection

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 2,08 million

Intensity

45 %

Duration

1.11.2006-31.12.2008

Economic sectors

Manufacturing industry

Name and address of the granting authority

Regione Friuli-Venezia-Giulia

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/

---
|EXHIBIT 99.2

FIRST MUTUAL BANCSHARES, INC.
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|In connection with the Annual Report of First Mutual Bancshares, Inc., a Washington corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Roger A. Mandery, Executive Vice President and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:
(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.
|
**Exhibit32.2**

 

Certificationof Litigation Trustee Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of Information Resources, Inc. Litigation Contingent Payment RightsTrust for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of theirknowledge:

 

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

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ MONICA M. WEED |   |
|--------------------|--------|
| Monica M. Weed     |
| Litigation Trustee |
| May 4, 2005        |

 

 

This certification accompanies the Reportpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except tothe extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by theRegistrant for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.

 

 

1

----
[No. 14490.

In Bank.

March 28, 1892.]

#### SAN GABRIEL WINE COMPANY, Respondent, *v.*WILLIAM BEHLOW et al., Appellants.

Practice — Special Finding of Damages — Specification of Particulars — Covenant against Encumbrances. — On an issue as to the amount of damages sustained hy the grantees in a deed for a breach of covenant against encumbrances, a special finding by the jury that no damages were sustained by reason of the prior encumbrance will not be reviewed on appeal, in the absence of a specification of particulars in which the evidence is insufficient to iustifv that finding.

*109Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County refusing a new trial.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

*Chapman & Hendrick,*for Appellants.

*Gottschalk & Luckel,*for Respondent.

Sharpstein, J.

This appeal is from the order of the court denying the motion of appellants for a new trial as to their counterclaim in an action brought by plaintiff to recover five hundred dollars, alleged to be a balance due plaintiff from defendants for purchase-money of a block of land in Ramona. The counterclaim is for a breach of covenant in the conveyance against encumbrances, the alleged encumbrance consisting of a prior conveyance by respondent of a right of way over said block to the San Gabriel Valley Rapid Transit Railway, a corporation. Defendants alleged that they were thereby damaged three thousand dollars, for which they demanded judgment against plaintiff.

Among the special issues submitted to the jury was the following': “ Q. What is the amount of damage to said block from the existence of said railroad? A. No damage.”

There is sufficient evidence to justify this finding, and appellants, in their specification of particulars in which the evidence is insufficient to justify the special findings or verdict of the jury, do not specify wherein the evidence is insufficient to justify that finding. None of the alleged errors of law occurring at the trial could have influenced the jury in the least in reaching the conclusion that the block of land through which said right of way had been granted was not damaged thereby. We therefore omit the discussion of such alleged errors as could not have affected the substantial rights of appellants.

If they sustained no damage, they were not entitled to recover any, and the order must be affirmed.

Order affirmed.

*110Paterson, J., Harrison, J., McFarland, J., De Haven, J., and Garoutte, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.
No. 41840.

#### Protests 155898-G, etc., of Max Horn *&*Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that the Normandy laces in question are similar to those involved in *Amrein*v. *United States*(T. D. 49551). In accordance therewith the claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was sustained.
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification of Periodic Financial Reports**     I, Robert J. Messey, Vice President of Arch Western Resources, LLC, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 (the“Periodic Report”) which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and     (2) information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Arch Western Resources, LLC.     /s/ Robert J. Messey     Robert J. Messey  Vice PresidentDate: May 14, 2007
**Exhibit
      10.12**


Form
      of


Amendment
      No. 1


to


PROMISSORY
      NOTE




Between




**RIO
      VISTA OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.**




And




**TRANSMONTAIGNE
      PRODUCT SERVICES INC.**








Rio
      Vista
      Operating Partnership, L.P. (“Rio”) executed a Promissory Note dated August 15,
      2006 (“Promissory Note”) in favor of TransMontaigne Product Services Inc.
      (“TPSI”) pursuant to the terms of that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated
      August 15, 2005 (“Agreement”) between the same parties. In accordance with the
      Amended and Restated Agreement dated August 15, 2006, Rio and TPSI agreed to
      amend the Promissory Note, effective as of the Closing Date of the Amended
      and
      Restated Agreement, as follows:




1. Delete
      the fifth sentence of Section 3 in its entirety and replace it with the
      following:





“The
      entire principal balance and any other amounts due under this Note shall be
      due
      and payable in full on the first anniversary of the Closing Date, as that term
      is defined in the Purchase and Sale Agreement dated August 15, 2005, as amended
      and restated on August 15, 2006 between Borrower and Holder
      (“Maturity”).”





2. In
      Section 9, after the date “August 15, 2005,” insert “, as amended and restated
      on August 15, 2006.”





3. The
      other
      terms of the Promissory Note remain unchanged and the parties hereby ratify
      and
      confirm them.





**RIO
                VISTA OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, LP**
            
            **TRANSMONTAIGNE
                PRODUCT****SERVICES INC.**By:
            
            
            By:Name:
                Charles Handly
            
            Name:
                William S. DickeyTitle:  
                President
            
            Title:  
                President
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7815** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JEMAREN MARVIN CONNOR , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. ( 8:01

- cr - 00513

- DKC

- 1 ; 8:12

- cv - 02499

- DKC ) Submitted : March 28, 2013 Decided: April 1, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Jemaren Marvin Connor , Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Mara Zusman Greenberg , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding prec edent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jemaren Marvin Connor seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certific ate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the me rits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Connor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument bec ause the facts and legal3 c ontentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
No. 59032.

protest 246601-K (New York).

#### Frederic Henjes, Jr., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled.
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated March 19, 2015, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-201723) of Smart Trust, High
20 Dividend Strategy Trust, Series 10.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


March 19, 2015
#### PIETRO ROSELLE, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. THE CITY OF EAST ORANGE, COUNTY OF ESSEX, NEW JERSEY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued June 4, 1962

Decided June 11, 1962.

*Mr. Samuel A. Lamer*argued the cause for the appellants *{Messrs. Budd, Lamer & Kent,*attorneys).

*Mr. William P. Reiss*argued the cause for the respondent *{Mr. William L. Brack,*attorney).

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons-given by the trial court in an opinion reported under the name of *Greggio v. Orange,*69 *N. J. Super.*453 (1961).

*For*affirmance—Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall and Haneman—6.

*For*reversal—Hone.
AGEN-12.31.14-EX10.8






Exhibit 10.8
SCHEDULE TO INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT


The following is a list of the current and former directors and executive officers of Agenus who are party to an Indemnification Agreement, the form of which was filed as Exhibit 10.4 to our registration statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-91747):


Noubar Afeyan, Ph.D.
Garo H. Armen, Ph.D.
Frank V. AtLee III
Ozer Baysal
Brian Corvese
Gamil G. de Chadarevian
Tom Dechaene
Margaret Eisen
Renu Gupta
John Hatsopoulos
Wadih Jordan
Mark Kessel
Christine Klaskin
Bruce Leicher
Hyam Levitsky
Timothy Rothwell
Shalini Sharp
Pramod K. Srivastava, Ph.D.
Robert Stein
Peter Thornton
Karen Valentine
Kerry Wentworth
Alastair Wood
Timothy Wright
#### T.S.F. Associates Corp., Respondent, v Morris Heights Association et al., Appellants.

[635 NYS2d 466]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered July 18, 1995, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action based for specific performance, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the issues of fact found to exist on defendants’ prior motion for summary judgment (210 AD2d 102) are not removed by defendants’ scheduling of a closing for a date earlier than that provided in the contract. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Williams, JJ.