alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302





I, Marlen L. Roepke , certify that:





1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of KNW Networks, Inc. ;





2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;





3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual 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 annual 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 annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and





c) presented in this annual 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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent 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 annual report whether 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: March 29, 2004





by








/s/ Marlen L. Roepke


Marlen L. Roepke
No. 58082.

protest 215712-K (New York).

#### Carl Zeiss, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the cited case, the protest was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
lulu-2015.02.01-EX10.24






Exhibit 10.24
	
	
	Outside Director Compensation Plan (a)




(Effective February 2015) 
	
			
	Annual Cash Retainer:
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Board Member
	 
	$60,000

	 
	 
	 

	Non-Executive Chairman of the Board
	 
	$125,000

	Lead Director
	 
	$50,000

	Audit Committee Chair
	 
	$20,000

	Audit Committee Member
	 
	No additional compensation

	Compensation Committee Chair
	 
	$15,000

	Compensation Committee Member
	 
	No additional compensation

	Nominating Committee Chair
	 
	$10,000

	Nominating Committee Member
	 
	No additional compensation

	 
	 
	 

	Additional Payments:
	 
	 

	Attendance Fee for In Person Attendance at Board Meeting
	 
	$1,500

	Attendance Fee for Telephonic Attendance at Board Meeting
	 
	$1,000

	Attendance Fee for Committee Meeting Attendance
	 
	$1,000

	 
	 
	 

	Equity Grant Upon Initial Election or Appointment
	 
	 

	New directors – on the date of initial election or appointment to the Board, new directors (other than directors elected at the annual meeting of stockholders who will receive the annual grant of restricted stock as set forth below) will be entitled to a pro-rata portion of the annual restricted stock award grant
	 
	Pro-rata for partial year of service based on the date of initial election or appointment, relative to the date of the preceding Annual Meeting of Stockholders

	 
	 
	 

	Annual Grant of Restricted Stock (b)
	 
	$125,000

	 
	 
	 

	Expense Reimbursement – for travel, lodging and other reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending board and committee meetings.
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 




All amounts listed above are in United States dollars. 
	
		
	(a)
	Each member of the Board, other than a director employed by the Company, is entitled to receive compensation under this plan. 

	(b)
	Each share of restricted stock will be fully vested on the earlier of (1) first anniversary of the grant date and (2) the Company's next Annual General Meeting. 




The number of shares issued for restricted stock awards shall equal the specified dollar value of the restricted stock award divided by the applicable per share ASC 718 charge as of the grant date as determined by the company for financial reporting purposes. 
Timing of Director Compensation: Each Director shall receive an initial restricted stock award the day of the director’s election or appointment to the board. Thereafter, on the date of each annual meeting of stockholders, each person who is either elected to the Board at the annual meeting or continues to serve on the Board upon the conclusion of the annual meeting will receive all of his or her restricted stock award, which grant will be subject to one year vesting. 
The cash retainer and other fees will be paid in arrears, quarterly or semi-annually at the Company’s discretion.
SERVED: March 24, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MARCO FIMBRES 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2015-0204 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

ORDER REASSIGNING PROCEEDING 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin has transferred to the Food and Drug 

Administration. Accordingly, this proceeding is hereby reassigned from Judge Goodwin to 

Administrative Law Judge Douglas M. Rawald. Any dates set for hearing or prehearing 

conference are suspended until further notice. All other orders remain in full force and effect 

absent further order. 

SO ORDERED. 

Attachment-Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 000 1 

Marco A. Fimbres, Respondent 

4444 East Benson Highway, Trlr 21 

Tucson, AZ 85706 

Lierre Green, Complainant 's Counsel 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-7.6 

Western-Pacific Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P. 0. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7117 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

ONE COPY 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2015-0204 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W 1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
#### John H. Harbeck, *as Commissioner, Respondent, v.*Bernard R. Rockefeller, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### In the Matter of Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent, v Jean J. Souffrant, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 575]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated July 15, 1994, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, and the parties are directed to proceed to arbitration.

It is well settled that an insurance carrier may not disclaim liability if it fails to give the insured timely notice of disclaimer "as soon as is reasonably possible after it first learns of the accident or grounds for disclaimer of liability” *(Hartford Ins. Co. v County of Nassau,*46 NY2d 1028,1029; *Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Steiner,*199 AD2d 507). At bar, Allstate Insurance Company (hereinafter Allstate) had all *of*the information it needed to investigate the status of the appellant’s driver’s license when it received the appellant’s claim on January 11, 1994. Since Allstate waited until March 25, 1994, to disclaim uninsured motorist coverage on the basis that the appellant’s license had been suspended at the time of the accident, this more than two-month unexplained delay was unreasonable as a matter of law *(see, Hartford Ins. Co. v County of Nassau, supra).*Accordingly, Allstate may not disclaim liability or deny coverage in this case.

In light of this determination, we need not address the appellant’s remaining contention. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                        ROBOTIC SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY INC.


         ROBOTIC SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY INC., a corporation organized and existing
under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

         FIRST: That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of ROBOTIC SYSTEMS &
TECHNOLOGY INC. resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment
of  the  Certificate  of  Incorporation  of  said  corporation,  declaring  said
amendment  to be  advisable  and calling a meeting of the  stockholders  of said
corporation for consideration thereof. The resolution setting forth the proposed
amendment is as follows:

                  RESOLVED,  that  the  Certificate  of  Incorporation  of  this
         corporation  be amended by changing the Article  thereof  numbered "THE
         FIRST" so that, as amended said Article shall be and read as follows:

               The name of the corporation is: CONCORD INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.

         SECOND:  That  thereafter,  pursuant  to  resolution  of its  Board  of
Directors,  a special meeting of the  stockholders of said  corporation was duly
called and held,  upon  consent in  accordance  with  Section 228 of the General
Corporation  law of the State of Delaware at which meeting the necessary  number
of shares as required by statute were voted in favor of the amendment.

         THIRD:  That said  amendment  was duly adopted in  accordance  with the
provisions  of  Section  242 of the  General  Corporation  Law of the  State  of
Delaware.

         FOURTH: That the capital of said corporation shall not be reduced under
or by reason of said amendment.

         FIFTH: This amendment shall become effective upon filing.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  said ROBOTIC SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY INC. has caused
this  certificate  to be  signed  by its  Authorized  Officer,  this 13th day of
September, 1994.



                                  BY: HENRY VAL
                                      -------------------------------------
                                      Authorized Officer, (title) President
#### Commonwealth *v.*Gist, Appellant.

Submitted November 11, 1968.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Koberts, JJ.

*102
      *John H. Lewis, Jr.*and *Gregory M. Harvey,*for appellant.

*James D. Crawford,*Assistant District Attorney, *Richard A. Sprague,*First Assistant District Attorney, and *Arlen Specter,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

January 15, 1969:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Roberts,

Appellant is trying for the third time to collaterally attack his conviction of first degree murder. In his two prior attempts he was unrepresented; now he has counsel. After a hearing below, appellant’s Post Conviction Hearing Act petition was denied and appellant took this appeal.

Appellant first claims that he was not told of his right to appeal with counsel guaranteed by *Douglas v.*California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S. Ct. 814 (1963). The Commonwealth agrees that since the trial record is silent on the issue of waiver, it has the burden of proving that appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his *Douglas*rights. See, e.g., *Commonwealth v. Wilson,*430 Pa. 1, 241 A. 2d 760 (1968).

At appellant’s PCHA hearing, appellant’s trial counsel testified that appellant did not want to appeal. He was unable to testify as to exactly what he told appellant about his appeal rights, and could not state *103that he had told appellant that he was entitled to free counsel on appeal if necessary. Under these circumstances it is clear that as a matter of law the Commonwealth has failed to prove a knowing and intelligent waiver. See, e.g., *Commonwealth v. Dixon,*432 Pa. 423, 248 A. 2d 231 (1968); *Commonwealth v. Ritchey,*431 Pa. 269, 245 A. 2d 446 (1968)*;*cf. *Commonwealth v. Ezell,*431 Pa. 101, 244 A. 2d 646 (1968).

Appellant requests that if we grant him *Douglas*relief, we consider the present proceeding as his direct appeal, since all his claims are on the trial record. Of course there is no reason to not accept appellant’s offer, and we may proceed as if this case were on direct appeal from appellant’s trial.

The Commonwealth concedes that a “tacit admission” was introduced against appellant at his trial, but argues that the rule barring the use of tacit admissions should not be applicable to this case. However, under our recent decision in *Commonwealth v. Little,*432 Pa. 256, 248 A. 2d 32 (1968), the rule barring the use of tacit admissions applies to all cases on direct appeal following the granting of *Douglas*relief. Cf. *Commonwealth v. Storch,*432 Pa. 121, 247 A. 2d 562 (1968). Appellant thus is entitled to a new trial and we need not consider any other claim he might have.

The order of the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County is vacated and the case remanded for a new trial.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8360 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to deem any sunscreen 

or cosmetic containing parabens to be adulterated. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2024 

Mrs. LUNA (for herself, Ms. CARAVEO, and Mr. NEHLS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

deem any sunscreen or cosmetic containing parabens to 

be adulterated. 

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 ‘‘No Toxic Chemicals 

5 in Cosmetics Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADULTERATED SUNSCREEN AND COSMETICS CON7 TAINING PARABENS. 

8 (a) SUNSCREEN CONTAINING PARABENS.—Section 

9 501 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8360 IH

1 U.S.C. 351) is amended by inserting after paragraph (j) 

2 the following: 

3 ‘‘(k) If it is a drug that— 

4 ‘‘(1) contains 1 or more active ingredients in5 tended for application to the skin of humans for 

6 purposes of absorbing, reflecting, or scattering ultra7 violet radiation; and 

8 ‘‘(2) bears or contains parabens, including 

9 esters of parahydroxybenzoic acid, which include 

10 methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben, 

11 butylparaben, isopropylparaben, isobutylparaben, 

12 benzylparaben, phenylparaben, and pentylparaben.’’. 

13 (b) COSMETICS CONTAINING PARABENS.—Section 

14 601 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 

15 U.S.C. 361) is amended by adding at the end the fol16 lowing: 

17 ‘‘(h) If it bears or contains parabens, including esters 

18 of parahydroxybenzoic acid, which include methylparaben, 

19 ethylparaben, propylparaben, butylparaben, 

20 isopropylparaben, isobutylparaben, benzylparaben, 

21 phenylparaben, and pentylparaben.’’. 

22 (c) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by sub23 sections (a) and (b) shall apply only with respect to drugs 

24 and cosmetics introduced or delivered for introduction into 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8360 IH

1 interstate commerce on or after the date that is 2 years 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8355 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8355

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to recognize Indian tribal 
   governments for purposes of determining under the adoption credit 
                   whether a child has special needs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2024

Mr. Kilmer (for himself, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. Moolenaar, and 
   Ms. Moore of Wisconsin) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to recognize Indian tribal 
   governments for purposes of determining under the adoption credit 
                   whether a child has special needs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Tribal Adoption Parity Act''.

SEC. 2. RECOGNIZING INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS FOR PURPOSES OF 
              DETERMINING UNDER THE ADOPTION CREDIT WHETHER CHILD HAS 
              SPECIAL NEEDS.

    (a) In General.--Section 23(d)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or Indian tribal 
        government'' after ``a State'', and
            (2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or Indian tribal 
        government'' after ``such State''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2


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

The undersigned Surinder Rametra, Treasurer of Goldeneye Capital Group, Inc.
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Goldeneye Capital Group, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2004 (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 Goldeneye Capital
Group, Inc.


 Dated: August 1, 2005


 /s/ Surinder Rametra
 --------------------
 Surinder Rametra
 Treasurer
 (Principal Financial  Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
#### Diana Morris, *Appellant, v.*Charles Wall and others, *Respon*dents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, according to stipulation, for non-service of case. Gilbert, J., not sitting.
[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 lonAnnual reportgeravailable from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Annual report**
 
2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010
 
SuDoc Number:E 2.1:

Item Number:0429-V-10 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000552147
 
June 29, 2020
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES ARTHUR HAROLSON,

Plaintiff, 2:04-cv-1987-GEB-DAD-P

vs.

KEVIN McCLURE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On December 15, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. The copy of the

findings and recommendations served on plaintiff at his address of record was returned as

undeliverable. Although plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address, the Clerk of the

Court obtained a new address from the California Department of Corrections and re-served the

findings and recommendations on plaintiff on December 27, 2005, and again on January 26,

2006. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

Case 2:04-cv-01987-GEB-DAD Document 14 Filed 03/27/06 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

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 15, 2005, are adopted in

full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted.

Dated: March 24, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01987-GEB-DAD Document 14 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 2