alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent, as successor accountants of Dayton & Associates (said firm 
being merged with and into Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co. on September 1, 1996) 
to the incorporation by reference of their Independent Auditors Report dated 
February 29, 1996 regarding the consolidated balance sheets of Monarch 
Bancorp and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and December 31, 1994, and 
the related statements of operations, changes in capital, and cash flows for 
each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 1995, in the Form 10-K 
of Western Bancorp filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which 
is to be incorporated by reference in the Form S-8 of Western Bancorp related 
to its 401(k) Plan.

                                         /s/  VAVRINEK, TRINE, DAY & Co., LLP

March 23, 1998
Laguna Hills, California
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION
     I, Patrick D. O’Brien, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005of American Oil & Gas, Inc.
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;
     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;
     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and
     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and
     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.   Date:May 19, 2005 /s/ Patrick D. O’Brien Patrick D. O’Brien
NO. 07-08-0328-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	OCTOBER 22, 2008

	______________________________

	IN THE INTEREST OF J.R.U. AND C.L.U., CHILDREN

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 65,381-D; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

		MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant, Heath Upshaw, filed a pro se notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s order modifying and clarifying the parent-child relationship.  Because Upshaw’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

	The timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b).  A notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after an appealable order is signed.  See  Tex. R. App. P. 26.1.  When a party files a notice of appeal with the trial court within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice, and files in the appellate court a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b), including a recitation of the facts relied on to reasonably explain the need for an extension, the appellate court may extend the time to file the notice of appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3.  The Supreme Court has held that the motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, takes the necessary steps to perfect an appeal.  See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616-17 (Tex. 1997).  Nevertheless, it is still necessary for an appellant to provide this Court with a “reasonable explanation” for the need for an extension.  See Jones v. City of Houston, 976 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Tex. 1998).  

	 In this case, the trial court’s order was signed on July 2, 2008, making the notice of appeal due no later than August 1, 2008.  Upshaw filed his notice of appeal on August 5, 2008.  Even though Upshaw’s notice of appeal was not timely filed, because it was filed within the fifteen days of its original due date, we implied the filing of a motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal.  By letter dated September 17, 2008, this Court requested Upshaw to provide a reasonable explanation, in writing, on or before October 10, 2008, as to why an extension of time was necessary.  At the same time, we further admonished Upshaw that failure to do so might result in dismissal of his appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.  Having been provided a reasonable opportunity to do so, Upshaw has failed to comply with our request or otherwise provide a reasonable explanation for the need for an extension. 

	Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Our disposition renders moot an extension of time filed by the court reporter in which to file the reporter’s record.  

							Patrick A. Pirtle

							      Justice
## Attachment B

Attachment B

- 1: Combined SIP Completeness Checklist

Attachment B

- 2 : Materials Pertaining to 2009 Regulatory Action , Second Tier ( Includes documents previously submitted 1/28/2011)



## Attachment B

- 3 : Materials Pertaining to 2010 R egulatory Action

Attachment B

- 4 : Materials Pertaining to 2012 Regulatory Action

## Attachment B

- 1: Combined SIP Completeness ChecklistCOMPLETENESS CHECKLIST FOR SIP REVISION: 2009, 2010, AND 2012

AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATION FOR REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM CONSUMER PRODUCTS

Submitting Agency: California Air Resources Board
Title 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix V

– Criteria for Determining the Completeness of Submissions Enclosed Notes

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS

2.1(a) Submittal Letter from Governor's Designee Yes Cover letter to Amendments transmittal; the California Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) Executive Officer is designee

2.1(b) E vidence of Adoption Yes See ARB Executive Order S

- 13

- 010 and Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approval documents in Attachment B for each Amendment

.

2.1(c) Legal Authority Citation Yes See ARB E xecutive O rder S

- 13

- 010 and Board Resolutions 09

- 51, 10

- 40, and 12

- 32 in Attachment B for each amendment

.

2.1(d) Copy of 2009, 2010, and 2012 Amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation Yes See Attachment B for the amended text for each Amendment and Attachment A for a copy of the Consumer Products Reg ulation that incorporates all of the amendments. 2.1(e) Evidence of Compliance with State's Procedural Requirements Yes See ARB Executive Order S

- 13

- 010 2.1(f) Evidence of Public Notice Consistent with 40 CFR part 51.102 Yes See Attachment B for cop ies of the individual Public Notices for each Amendment. 2.1(g) Certification of Public Hearing in Accordance with Notice Yes See ARB Executive Order S

- 13

- 010

2.1(h) Compilation of Public Comments and Responses Yes See Attachment B for responses to c omments for each Amendment.TECHNICAL SUPPORT

2.2(a) Identification of Regulated Pollutant Yes See Attachment B for the Updated Informative Digest for each Amendment. 2.2(b) Identification of Attainment Area/Status N/A

2.2(c) Estimate of Plan's I mpact on Emissions Yes See Attachment B for the Initial Statement of Reasons for each Amendment.
2.2(d) Demonstration that Plan Approval/Implementation Protects NAAQS N/A See Attachment B for the Initial Statement of Reasons, Environmental Impacts Analy sis chapter, for each Amendment. 2.2(e) Modeling Support N/A
2.2(f) Continuous Emission Reduction Technology N/A

2.2(g) Compliance Requirements Yes See Attachment A, section 94513.

2.2(h) Enforcement Yes See Executive Order S

- 13

- 010

2 .2(i) Economic and Technical Justifications Yes See Attachment B for the Initial Statement of Reasons, Economic Impacts chapter, for each Amendment.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

# DSCC ensures safety through continued assessments 

By Paul BatoryDLA Installation Management – Columbus, Security and Emergency Services

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              
Functional area subject matter experts from the Defense Supply Center Columbus Installation Management along with Corps of Engineers Protective Design Center personnel conducted a local vulnerability assessment of the installation June 4-6.

The purpose was to identify vulnerabilities that may be exploited by terrorists and suggest options, both procedural and resource-based, that may be used to remediate or mitigate those vulnerabilities.

The team used the DOD Mission Assurance Assessment Benchmarks to assess the installation. The findings of the assessment will be used to maintain and improve the security of the installation.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Safety L&MSecurity L&MDLA L&MCorps of Engineers
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 28, 2011 

h1219 

Order 

 

December 28, 2011 

143057 & (20)(21) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143057 

 COA: 302527 

BENJAMIN RICARDO RAGAN, Washtenaw CC: 99-012514-FC 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 14, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motions to remand and for a new trial are DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                         1230893
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   557415
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2051938
<PP&E>                                         1951555
<DEPRECIATION>                                  744551
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5228648
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           604184
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          4708
<OTHER-SE>                                     4060202
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5228648
<SALES>                                        4776418
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4776418
<CGS>                                          4475976
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4475976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (75592)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 255978
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (2351)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    258329
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
#### Charles A. Hooper *versus*Sylvanus G. Haskell *& als.*

In the trial of an action brought in the name of the plaintiff alono, for injuring his property, destroying his business and violently expelling him and his wife from the town, —neither the wife’s “ mental anguish in being separated from her husband,” nor her “feelings as a woman, compelled to , abandon a chosen residence and turn her back on associations formed in early life,” is a matter for the consideration of the jury in estimating the damages.

On Exceptions.

Trespass for violently and unlawfully expelling and banishing the plaintiff and his wife from the town of Deer Isle, and breaking up the plaintiff’s business as a merchant, injuring his property, making his wife sick, ” whereby he lost her comfort and services, and has been put to great expense for medicine and medical aid, in consequence of the acts of the defendants.”

The presiding Judge instructed the jury, *inter alia,*that the amount of damages for injury to the plaintiff’s wife, her health, shock to her nervous system, the physical harm, mental anguish in being separated from her husband, her feelings as a woman compelled to abandon a chosen residence and turn her back on associations formed in early life, were all matters for their consideration in estimating the damages.

The verdict was for the plaintiff, and the defendants alleged exceptions.

*W.*Gr. *Crosby,*for the defendants.

*Jewett & Boyle,*for the plaintiff.

Walton, J.

The plaintiff in his declaration avers that his wife was made sick, that he thereby lost her comfort and services and was put to great expense for medicine and medical aid, in consequence of the illegal acts of the defendants. For such injuries he was undoubtedly entitled to recover damages. But the action beimr in his name alone. *252he could not recover for her " mental anguish in being separated from her husband,” nor for her " feelings as a woman compelled to abandon a chosen residence and turn her back on associations formed in early life;” Damages for such injuries, if recoverable at all, can only be recovered in an action in which husband and wife join. On this point the instructions of the presiding Judge were erroneous. See opinion of the Court in *Laughlin*v. *Eaton,*54 Maine, 156, and authorities there cited. • *Exceptions sustained.*

*New trial granted.*

Appleton, C. J., Kent, Barrows and Danporth, JJ., concurred.
No. 42183.

#### Protests 698215-G, etc., of Blum Brothers et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstracts 41794 and 40880 the protests were sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Vel, Appellant.

[612 NYS2d 860]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ivan Warner, J.), rendered January 9, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of 3 counts of attempted murder in the first degree, assault in the first degree, 2 counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, assault in the second degree, attempted robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 15 years to *190life for the 3 attempted first degree murder convictions, 5 to 15 years for the first degree assault and 2 second degree criminal possession of a weapon convictions and 2V5 to 7 years for the attempted second degree robbery, second degree assault, third degree criminal possession of a weapon and first degree reckless endangerment convictions, unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and recognizing that credibility is for the trier of facts *(People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, 757, *cert denied*469 US 932), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490). Equally applicable here is the finding we made in the codefendant’s appeal that the hearing court had properly held that there was an independent source for the complainants’ in-court identifications of the defendants *(People v Santos,*202 AD2d 258). We also find that defendant was not prejudiced by the introduction of his photograph at trial, and, for the reasons discussed in the codefendant’s appeal *(supra),*we reject defendant’s claim that the prosecutor’s summation deprived him of a fair trial. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
No. 48893.

#### Protests 957339-G, etc., of T. H. Lung Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Quong Yuen Shing Co.*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247) the merchandise was found to contain salt and was therefore excluded from paragraph 5. The protests were sustained to this extent.
EXHIBIT 10.2


MATERIAL TERMS OF ANDY A.
GOETSCH  EMPLOYMENT 

EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 10, 2007


•    Hired as the Company’s Executive Vice
President — Online Gaming, effective September 10, 2007.


•    Annual salary of $335,500.


•    Received a one-time starting
bonus of $100,000.


•    Eligible
for a performance-based annual bonus calculated as a percentage of the Company’s
net online gaming revenue, calculated by taking the Company’s online gaming
revenue less all operational, marketing and general and administrative costs directly
associated with the Company’s Online Gaming Division, as follows:


	
  Net Operating Income Range

  	
   

  	
  Bonus Percentage

  	
   

  
	
  $1 - $100,000

  	
   

  	
  3.0%

  	
   

  
	
  $100,001 - $300,000

  	
   

  	
  4.0%

  	
   

  
	
  $300,001 - $1,000,000

  	
   

  	
  5.0%

  	
   

  
	
  $1,000,001 - $3,000,000

  	
   

  	
  5.5%

  	
   

  
	
  $3,000,001 and above

  	
   

  	
  6.0%

  	
   

  



 


 


•    In
fiscal 2008, if the above bonus is less than $133,000, the performance based
bonus for 2008 will be calculated by achieving threshold levels of annual gross
gaming revenue as follows:


	
  Gross Gaming Revenue Range 

  	
   

  	
  % of Total Bonus

  	
   

  	
  Bonus Amount

  	
   

  
	
  Less than $7,200,000

  	
   

  	
  0%

  	
   

  	
  $ - 0 -

  	
   

  
	
  $7,200,001 - $8,400,000
  (60%)

  	
   

  	
  75%

  	
   

  	
  $99,750

  	
   

  
	
  $8,400,001 - $9,600,000
  (70%)

  	
   

  	
  80%

  	
   

  	
  $106,400

  	
   

  
	
  $9,600,001 - $10,800,000
  (80%)

  	
   

  	
  95%

  	
   

  	
  $126,350

  	
   

  
	
  $10,800,001 and above

  	
   

  	
  100%

  	
   

  	
  $133,000

  	
   

  



 


 


•    Eligible
for a business development bonus for securing additional “white label” gaming
websites, equal to 5% of the first 12 months net revenue derived from the
website.  This would be a one-time bonus
payment per white label site.


•    Granted an
option to purchase 220,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, at an exercise
price equal to the common stock’s market price on the date of grant of $3.50.
The option vests in equal installments over a three year period, beginning on
the first anniversary of the September 10, 2007 grant date and continuing on
each subsequent anniversary date until fully vested.


 


•   Eligible
to receive severance equal to six (6) months of annual salary if terminated
without cause.