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

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Daniel Myers, the Registrant's Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Carsunlimited.com,
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 we 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
Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
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.

Date: May 23, 2005

/s/Daniel Myers
-----------------------
Chief Executive Officer
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1758 

To amend the Federal Power Act prohibit the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission from requiring the removal or modification of existing structures or encroachments in licenses of the Commission. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 20, 2011 

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself and Mr. BLUNT) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Power Act prohibit the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from requiring the removal 

or modification of existing structures or encroachments 

in licenses of the Commission. 

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 ‘‘Landowner Protection 

5 Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLANS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4(e) of the Federal Power 

8 Act (16 U.S.C. 797(e)) is amended— 


sroberts on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1758 IS

1 (1) by designating the first, second, and third 

2 sentences as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respec3 tively; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(4) REMOVAL OR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING

6 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES OR ENCROACH7 MENTS.— 

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 

9 subparagraph (B), in issuing, denying, approv10 ing, or modifying a shoreline management plan 

11 required under any license issued under this 

12 part for any project, the Commission shall not 

13 require the removal or modification of any ex14 isting nonconforming structure or encroachment 

15 within the project boundary. 

16 ‘‘(B) EXCEPTION.—Subparagraph (A) 

17 shall not apply to any existing nonconforming 

18 structure or encroachment built within the 

19 project boundary in bad faith.’’. 

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

21 subsection (a) shall take effect on January 1, 2011. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2013225EN.01008305.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/83

---

Order of the General Court of 3 June 2013 — bachmaier v OHIM — (oto-soft)

(Case T-550/12) (1)

1

2013/C 225/190

Language of the case: German

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.

1

---
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Coleman and Overton Argued by teleconference

MARION SWANN, S/K/A MARION ANTHONY SWANN MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 2831-96-3 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON JANUARY 13, 1998 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE James F. Ingram, Judge K. Howard Sharp (Office of the Public Defender, on brief), for appellant. Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General (Richard Cullen, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Marion Swann (defendant) appeals his convictions of assault and battery against a family member, in violation of Code § 18.2-57.2, and of summary contempt due to his failure to appear at trial, in violation of Code § 18.2-456(5). He argues on appeal that 1) the lower court should have accepted his claim of self-defense against the charge of assault and battery and 2) he did not willfully fail to appear for trial because he was visiting a sick brother in the hospital. Because we find that his arguments are without merit, we affirm both convictions. The parties are fully conversant with the record in the cause, and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, no recitation of the facts is necessary.

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 The evidence on appeal is taken in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom. See Traverso v. Commonwealth , 6 Va. App. 172, 176, 366 S.E.2d 719, 721 (1988). The question of

whether self-defense has been established is an issue for the fact finder, in this case the trial judge. See Callahan v.

Commonwealth , 192 Va. 26, 30-31, 63 S.E.2d 617, 619 (1951). The trial judge found that defendant kicked his wife in the groin after being pushed by her from behind. Because such a painful kick was an unreasonable response to the victim's relatively minor blow, the trial judge refused to accept defendant's claim of self-defense. Because we cannot say that this finding was plainly wrong or without support, we affirm. Code § 8.01-608. Code § 18.2-456(5) allows courts to punish summarily a defendant's willful failure to appear for trial. Willfulness is implied when there is proof that the defendant received timely notice and he didn't appear. Hunter v. Commonwealth , 15 Va. App. 717, 721, 427 S.E.2d 197, 200 (1993). Here, defendant requests that a "sick friend" exception to the summary contempt power be created because he was at a hospital visiting his brother. We

decline defendant's invitation to do so. Had the General Assembly intended such an exception they could have created it by

statute. See Philip Morris Incorporated v. Emerson , 235 Va. 380, 406, 368 S.E.2d 268, 282 (1968) (holding that courts will not invent exceptions to settled law even for substantial or3 sympathetic cause). Because it has not, and defendant admits that he had notice of trial and yet did not appear, we affirm the

conviction. The evidence is more than sufficient to support both convictions. Thus, we affirm.

Affirmed.
# C_2014071EN.01001802.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Sunrider v OHIM — Nannerl (SUN FRESH)

(Case T-221/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark SUN FRESH - Earlier Community, Benelux and national word and figurative marks SUNNY FRESH, SUNRIDER SUNNY FRESH and SUNNYFRESH - Relative ground for refusal - Proof of the genuine use of earlier marks - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2014/C 71/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Sunrider Corporation (Torrance, California, United States) (represented by: N. Dontas and E. Markakis, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Nannerl GmbH & Co. KG (Anthering bei Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2012 (Case R 2401/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between The Sunrider Corporation and Nannerl GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders The Sunrider Corporation to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders The Sunrider Corporation to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.

---
#### S. Hall (Freedman *&*Slater, Inc.—Broker) *v.*United States

No. 7748.

Entry No. 727243.

(Decided October 21, 1949)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson (Joshua M. Davidson*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Charles J. Miville,*special attorney), for the defendant.

*290FoRD, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement involves the proper dutiable value of certain silk wearing apparel exported from Canada and entered at the port of New York. The merchandise was entered under duress, the importer adding an 8 per centum Canadian sales tax to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases then pending-on appeal for réappraisement.

This appeal has been submitted for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that the issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as the issues decided in *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States,*21 Cust. Ct. 314, Reap. Dec. 7624, and the record in that case has been admitted in evidence as a part of the record herein.

Counsel have also agreed that the appraised values of the involved merchandise, less the additions made by the importer on entry, are equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise.was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise was no higher.

Upon the agreed statement of facts, and following the cited authority, I hold the proper dutiable export value of the merchandise covered by this appeal to be the value found by the appraiser, less any amount added by the importer on entry to meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 10.24



Sam Caster

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Direct Dial: 972.471.725D

Email: scaster@mannatech.corn



March 7, 2005







Dr. H. Reg McDaniel



|RE: | Renewal of the Confidentiality and Non-Compete Agreement dated February 1, 2004 (Confidentiality Agreement) and the First Amendment to the Agreement dated March 3, 2004
(2004 Amendment), collectively, the 2004 Agreement.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dear Dr. Reg,



Under the terms and conditions of this Letter Agreement, the Company has determined that it is in its best interests to renew the 2004 Agreement for an additional one (1)
year period. All other terms of the 2004 Agreement shall remain in full force and effect with the following amendment at paragraph 13:



13. Term.



This Agreement commences on February 1, 2005, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and continues in full force and effect for one (1) year and will
expire on January 31, 2006 (Initial Term). Mannatech has the option to renew this Agreement for a further one (1) year term on the same terms and conditions, such option to be exercisable by notice in writing by Mannatech given not less
than one (1) month prior to the expiration of the Initial Term



Please execute
and return an original of this letter promptly and add your copy to your records.



Very truly yours,



/s/ Sam Caster

Sam Caster

Chairman & Chief

Executive Officer of

Mannatech, Inc.



ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

/s/ H. Regninald McDaniel

H. Reginald McDaniel



|Cc: | Stephen Fenstermacher
|--- | ---------------------

Cindy Marr
Before the Third Division,

May 25, 1950

No. 54352.

#### F. W. Myers & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 121322-K (Detroit).

*475Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of frozen codfish cakes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Frances B. Wilcon*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 38, C. D. 1123), decided on rehearing in Abstract 52941, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2012311EN.01001601.xml

| 13.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/16

---

Action brought on 20 June 2012 — ZZ v EIB

(Case F-63/12)

2012/C 311/21

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the letters by which the defendant is refusing to reimburse, following the judgment of the General Court of the European Union setting aside in part the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal, the EUR 6 000 which the applicant paid to the defendant in respect of recoverable costs in consequence of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal ruling on costs.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the letters of 4 and 25 May 2012, in so far as the EIB is refusing to reimburse the applicant the sum of EUR 6 000 which it had demanded in respect of costs in a previous case before the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the letters of 4 and 25 May 2012, in so far as the EIB is refusing to reimburse the applicant the sum of EUR 6 000 which it had demanded in respect of costs in a previous case before the Civil Service Tribunal;

| — | order the EIB to reimburse without delay that sum plus interest and compensation for currency fluctuations from the date of the payment by the applicant until the date of actual reimbursement; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EIB to reimburse without delay that sum plus interest and compensation for currency fluctuations from the date of the payment by the applicant until the date of actual reimbursement;

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant;

| — | order the EIB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EIB to pay the costs.

---
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Contessa Sportswear, Ltd., Petitioner, and Saugerties Mfg. Co., Inc., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

September 9, 1965.

*Sherman & Citron (Cecil A. Citron*of counsel), for petitioner. *Solomon Rosenbaum (Irving Reier*of counsel), for respondent.

Abthub G. Klein, J.

Motion to stay respondents from proceeding further with separate hearings on demands for arbitration made by the corporate respondents, and directing that said demands for arbitration be heard before a single panel of arbitrators is denied. In effect, petitioner is requesting this *51court to consolidate arbitration proceedings, a power held and exercised by the courts under the Civil Practice Act *(Matter of Symphony Fabrics Corp. [Bernson Silk Mills],*12 N Y 2d 409, 412; *Matter of Adam Cons. Ind. [Miller Bros. Hat Co.],*6 A D 2d 515). However, it now appears that with the enactment of the CPLR, such power no longer exists, as the statutory basis therefor, sections 1459 and 96 of the Civil Practice Act, whereby arbitration was deemed a special proceeding, are no longer in effect, and under CPLR 7502, arbitration is not so characterized (see 8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 7502.05; McClaughlin, Civil Practice, 16 Syracuse L. Rev. 419, 429, 454). Accordingly, the motion is denied. Settle order.

[Original opinion adhered to on reargument, December 22, 1965.]
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ GENENTECH, INC., INTERMUNE, INC., Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v. SANDOZ INC., LEK PHARMACEUTICALS, D.D., Defendants

- Appellees

______________________ 2022

- 1595

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 1:19

- cv
- 00078

- RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.

------------------------------------------------- GENENTECH, INC., INTERMUNE, INC., Plaintiffs

- Appellees

v. SANDOZ INC., LEK PHARMACEUTICALS, D.D., Defendants

- Appellants

______________________ 2022

- 1714

______________________ Case: 22-1595 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 06/16/2022GENENTECH , INC

. v. SANDOZ INC

. 2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 1:19

- cv
- 00078

- RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.

______________________ ON MOTION

______________________ O R D E R Upon consideration of the parties’ joint motion to voluntarily dismiss Appeal No. 2022

- 1714 , I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion is granted. Appeal No. 2022

- 1714 is dismissed. The revised official caption for the remaining appeal, Appeal No. 2022

- 1595 , is reflected above. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs in Appeal No. 2022

- 1714

. (3) The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this order to the merits panel assigned to Appeal No. 2022

- 1595

. (4) Genentech, Inc. and InterMune, Inc. ’s reply brief in Appeal No. 2022

- 1595 is due no later than July 5, 2022

.

June 16 , 2022 Date F OR THE C OURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE (as to 202 2

- 1714 only) : June 16, 2022 Case: 22-1595 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 06/16/2022
No. 54367.

#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 114921-K (New York).

*481Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of catchers’ gloves and fielders’ gloves the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *United States*v. *Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc.*(37 C. C. P. A. 32, C. A. D. 415), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(V.D. 117)

#### J. V. Whitaker, for the Account of Volkart Brothers. Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 186.

(Decided February 2, 1961)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*George 8. Leonard,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Ford, Judge:

This matter is before me on remand from classification proceedings decided by the third division of this court in *J. V.*Whitaker, *for the account of Volkart*Brothers, *Inc.*v. *United States,*43 Cust. Ct. 437, Abstract 63621, and has been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States as follows:

> 1. That the merchandise involved herein consists of viscose staple fiber exported from Austria.

> 2. That the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Austria in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States was the entered value.

> 3. That there was no foreign value.

> 4. That the instant case may be deemed submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the value of the involved merchandise, and that such value is the entered value. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2013359EN.01001202.xml

| 7.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 359/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/12

---

Order of the General Court of 15 October 2013 — Andechser Molkerei Scheitz v Commission

(Case T-13/12) (1)

1

(Application for annulment and compensation - Public health - List of food additives authorised in foodstuffs - Steviol glycosides - Application inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)

2013/C 359/22

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH (Andechs, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Grünheid and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Regulation (EU) No 1131/2011 of the Commission of 11 November 2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to steviol glycosides (OJ 2011 L 295, p. 205), in so far as it authorises the use of steviol glycosides extracted from the leaves of the Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni plant only as food additives and not as vegetable ingredients of agricultural origin or as aromatic preparations, and a claim for compensation.

Stevia rebaudiana

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed.

| 2. | Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Andechser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.

1

---
No. 96-5994.

#### Robinson et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.