alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Alan Treibitz, CEO, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Z-Axis Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or 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 annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report isbeing prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures asof the filing date of this annual report (the “Evaluation Date”); and  c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure 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 recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses ininternal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whetheror not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses.June 9, 2006   /s/ Alan Treibitz     Alan Treibitz  Chief Executive Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 12

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

|                                   |                                                     |  |      |     | 
|---------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- |  | ---- | --- | 
|Fixed Charges                      |                                                     |  |      |    
|                                   | Interest Expense                                    |  |      | 634 | 
|                                   |                                                     |  |      |    
|                                   | Total Fixed Charges                                 |  |      | 634 | 
|                                   |                                                     |  |      |    
|Earnings                           |                                                     |  |      |    
|                                   | Income from continuting opeations before income tax |  |      | 362 | 
|Fixed Charges                      |                                                     |  | 634  |    
|                                   |                                                     |  |      |    
|                                   |                                                     |  | 996  |    
|                                   |                                                     |  |      |    
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges |                                                     |  | 1.57 |
No. 96-7628.

#### Ricotta *v.*Ricotta.

Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
#### R. C. MARINE SERVICE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOMBAS ORGERON MARINE SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11747.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Dec. 28, 1977.

John J. Erny, Jr., Larose, for plaintiff-appellant.

L. G. Laplante, Jr., Cut Off, for defendant-appellee.

Before LANDRY, SARTAIN and ELLIS, JJ.

SARTAIN, Judge.

This appeal was fixed for argument and all attorneys of record were notified. At the time scheduled for argument, the appellant was not present or represented, nor had any brief been filed on behalf of appellant, nor had any motion been filed for continuance.

On authority of Rule VII, Section 5(b), this court, ex proprio motu, considers said appeal as abandoned; therefore, it is ordered that this appeal be dismissed with prejudice.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FE BRUARY 13, 2013

NO. 03

- 13

- 00061

- CR

Wendy Harris, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUST ICES GOODWIN AND FIE LD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dis missed for want of

jurisdiction: it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the Court that the appeal be

dismissed in accordance with the opinion of this Court . It is FURTHER ordered that it

appearing that the appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, t hat no adjudication as to costs is

made; and that this decision be certified below for observance.
#### Louise Marie THOMPSON, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, DIVISION OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SERVICES, Appellee.

No. 77-987.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 20, 1977.

*198Irene Redstone and Bruce M. Boiko, Miami, for appellant.

Roger J. Schindler, Miami, for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ.

NATHAN, Judge.

This is an appeal from a summary dismissal of her petition to regain custody by the natural mother of two minor children who were permanently committed to the state’s care. Appellant did not appeal the original order of permanent commitment when it was entered in 1974. The sole question on appeal is whether the trial court correctly construed the provisions of Section 39.11(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1977).

This section provides, in pertinent parts, that a permanent order of commitment “shall permanently deprive the parents . of any right to the child,” and that, once an order of permanent commitment has been entered, “the court shall no longer exercise jurisdiction over the child. . ."

Appellant contends that the statute, read as a whole, contemplates adoption as the reason for requiring finality of commitment procedures, and that where adoption proceedings have not been instituted, the statute should not preclude the court from hearing the natural parent’s petition to regain custody. She contends that unless she is allowed to re-open the original proceedings, she will have no avenue by which to seek permission to regain custody of her children.

We disagree, and affirm the ruling of the court below. Any rights the natural mother may have had to the children have been permanently lost. To allow final proceedings to be re-opened by means other than a proper appeal of the original order would be to wrench from the word “permanent” its intended meaning in this statute.

But this does not preclude her from establishing new rights through independent adoption proceedings. Once an order of permanent commitment is entered, the Division of Family Services stands in the shoes of the natural parents. Although the statute deprives the court of further jurisdiction over the child as far as the commitment proceedings are concerned, it has no effect on the Circuit Court’s jurisdiction over adoption proceedings. Thus appellant may petition the Circuit Court, as anyone else, for the right to adopt the children, and appropriate means are available for a complete review of her petition.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.1

  
    REVOLVING DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE


    Initially $969,000


    (as amended from time to time on Exhibit A) Effective July 19, 2007


    LRM Industries, LLC ("Maker"), promises to pay to the order of Envirokare Composite Corp. ("Holder"), at Holder's office or at such other place as Holder may designate in writing, in lawful money of the United States of America, the principal sum of the Outstanding Loan Amount on demand. The "Outstanding Loan Amount" shall initially be $969,000 but shall be amended to reflect additional loans ("Additional Loans") made by Holder to Maker from time to time, in the sole discretion of Holder, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto. Upon the making of each Additional Loan, Maker and Holder shall initial the entry of such Additional Loan amount on Exhibit A. Interest shall accrue from the date of this Note, with respect to the initial Outstanding Loan Amount, and from the date of each Additional Loan, with respect to the amount of each such Additional Loan, at a rate of 8.25% per annum, compounded quarterly, until paid.


    This Note, together with accrued and unpaid interest to date, may be prepaid in whole or in part at any time by Maker.


    In connection with the enforcement of Holder's rights hereunder, Maker waives diligence, presentment, protest, demand and notice of any kind whatsoever. The non-exercise by Holder of any of its rights hereunder in any particular instance shall not constitute a waiver thereof in any subsequent instance.


    In the event of any default hereunder, Maker agrees to pay all costs and expenses of collection, including without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees.


    This Note shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the internal laws of the State of New York without regard to principles of conflicts of law.


    LRM Industries, LLC


    By: /s/ Gary Cook


    Name: Gary Cook

    Title: Chairman of the Board of Managers


    


    Exhibit A


     


    	
          Additional Loan Amount

        	
          Date of Additional Loan/Loan Credit

        	
          Revised Aggregate Principal Amount of Loan

        	
           Initials
EXHIBIT 3.2.1




                            AMENDMENT TO THE BY-LAWS
                                       OF
                         ELECTRONIC CLEARING HOUSE, INC.
                             (a Nevada corporation)


THIS AMENDMENT TO THE BY-LAWS of Electronic Clearing House, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Corporation"), evidences the action of the Board of Directors
of the Corporation at a duly noticed meeting held on April 25, 2005 to amend the
first sentence of Section 2 of Article III of the By-Laws of the Corporation to
read in its entirety as follows:

     "The present designated number of directors which constitute the board
     shall be six (6)."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereby subscribed her name as of
this 25th day of April, 2005.




                                -----------------------------------
                                   Donna Rehman, Secretary
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SHERRIE A. RASMUSSEN, * * Petitioner, * No. 13

- 142 V * Special Master Christian J. Moran *

v. * Filed: October 10, 2014 * SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs; award AND HUMAN SERVICES, * in the amount to which * respondent does not object. Respondent. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Diana S. Sedar

, Maglio, Christopher, & Toale, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner; Tara J. Kilfoyle , United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for R espondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS 1

On October 10, 2014 , respondent filed a stipulation of fact concerning final attorneys’ fees and costs in the above

- captioned matter. Previously, petitioner informally submitted a draft application for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent for review. Upon review of petitioner’s application, respondent raised objections to certain items. Based on subsequent discussions, petitioner amended her
ap plication to request $ 22,000.00, an amount to which respondent does not object. The Court awards this amount.

On February 26, 2013

, Sherrie A. Rasmussen filed a petition for

c ompensation alleging that the influenza vaccine, which she received on September 5, 2011 , caused her to suffer Guillain

- Barré syndrome (“GBS”).

1 T he E -Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.Petitioner received compensation based upon the parties’ stipulation. Decision

, filed Oct. 10, 2014 . Because petitioner received compensation, she is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(e).

Petitioner seeks a total of $ 22,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs for her counsel. Additionally, in compliance with General Order No. 9, petitioner states that she has not incurred in out

- of

- pocket litigation expenses while pursuing this claim. Respondent has no objection to the amount requested for attorneys’ fees and costs.

After reviewing the request, the Court awards the fol lowing:

a. A lump sum of $ 22,000.00 in the form of a check made payable to petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Diana S.Sedar , for attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

15(e).

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this matter. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Christina Gervasi, at (202) 357

- 6521

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran Christian J. Moran Special Master
EX-10.12



 






	 	 	 	 	 



EXHIBIT 10.12




HERITAGE FINANCIAL GROUP

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN




AMENDMENT TO EXISTING PLAN AGREEMENT





      On May 20, 2002, Heritage Financial Group (the “Company”) and Heritage Bank of the South (the
“Bank”) entered into an agreement with the undersigned Executive regarding her entitlement under
the Heritage Financial Group Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the “Plan”) (the “Plan
Agreement”).



      The Company and the Bank now desire to amend the Executive’s Plan Agreement to fully accrue
her Plan benefit, notwithstanding her actual years of service with the Company and the Bank.



      The Plan contemplates that the Plan Agreement may be amended by an agreement entered into by
the parties.



      NOW THEREFORE, it is AGREED:



      That effective as of the date hereof, the Executive’s Plan Agreement shall be amended to
credit the Executive with fifteen (15) Years of Service for purposes of determining the Executive’s
Annual Benefit under the Plan.



Date: October 16, 2007




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Heritage Financial Group

 	 
	 	/s/ Antone D. Lehr
 	 
	 	By: Antone D. Lehr, Chairman 	 
	 	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Heritage Bank of the South

 	 
	 	/s/ Antone D. Lehr
 	 
	 	By: Antone D. Lehr, Chairman 	 
	 	 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Executive

 	 
	 	/s/ Carol W. Slappey
 	 
	 	Carol W. Slappey
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:    David J. O'Connor
            Chief Executive Officer
            (860) 253-5200


                          NEW ENGLAND BANCSHARES, INC.
                      TO INITIATE STOCK REPURCHASE PROGRAM
                           AND ANNOUNCES CASH DIVIDEND


         May 12, 2008,  Enfield,  Connecticut  -- New England  Bancshares,  Inc.
(Nasdaq:  NEBS) (the  "Company")  announced  today that it is commencing a stock
repurchase  program to acquire up to  304,924  shares,  or 5%, of the  Company's
outstanding  common  stock.  Repurchases,  which will be conducted  through open
market purchases or privately negotiated transactions, will be made from time to
time depending on market conditions and other factors.  There is no guarantee as
to the exact  number of shares to be  repurchased  by the  Company.  Repurchased
shares will be held in treasury.

         The Company also announced today that the Board of Directors declared a
cash dividend for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 of $0.03 per share.  The cash
dividend will be payable on June 20, 2008 to  stockholders  of record on June 2,
2008.

         New England Bancshares, Inc. is the holding company for Enfield Federal
Savings and Loan  Association and Valley Bank.  Enfield Federal Savings and Loan
Association  operates eight banking  centers serving the communities of Enfield,
Ellington,  Manchester,  Suffield, East Windsor and Windsor Locks,  Connecticut.
Valley Bank  operates  four  offices in  Bristol,  Terryville  and  Southington,
Connecticut.

         This press release may contain certain forward-looking statements which
are based on management's current expectations  regarding economic,  legislative
and regulatory issues that may impact the Company's  earnings in future periods.
Factors  that  could  cause  future  results  to vary  materially  from  current
management  expectations  include,  but are not  limited  to,  general  economic
conditions,  changes in interest  rates,  deposit flows,  real estate values and
competition,  changes in accounting principles,  policies or guidelines, changes
in  legislation  or regulation and other  economic,  competitive,  governmental,
regulatory  and  technological   factors  affecting  the  Company's  operations,
pricing, products and services.
Exhibit 10.3

Exhibit 10.3 - Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Other Named
               Officer Compensation

     The Bank's Board of Directors, upon the recommendation of the Executive
Officer Compensation Committee, approved the following (without CEO
participation relative to his compensation):

     1. Annual Base Salary Changes Effective January 1, 2008

     William H. McGaughey, SEVP/Director-Capital Markets/   $220,000 to $231,000
      Treasurer
     Donald A. Pitcher, EVP/Chief Financial Officer         $180,000 to $189,000
     Stephen H. Wacknitz, CEO/President/Chairman            $500,000 to $560,000
No. 00-6922.

#### Kerns *v.*Garner, Warden, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Joseph J. LAMBUSTA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 76-2477, 76-2495.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 13, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 17, 1978.

Larry M. Roth of Rutberg & Roth, Cas-selberry, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert L. Bogen, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

LETTS, Judge.

From an examination of the record and briefs in this cause, the court determines that the Circuit Court passed upon the constitutionality of Florida Statute 812.10 (1973).

Accordingly, because the Circuit Court’s ruling has been preserved and presented on appeal, we hereby transfer jurisdiction of this appeal to the Supreme Court pursuant to the authority of Article V, Section 3(b)l of the Florida Constitution and in accordance with Florida Appellate Rule 2.1(5)(d).

ANSTEAD, J., concurs.

CROSS, J., dissents, with opinion.

CROSS, Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

The record is totally devoid of an order of the trial court passing directly upon the validity of § 812.10, Florida Statutes. Thus, jurisdiction over the appeal does not vest in the Florida Supreme Court. Accordingly, I would retain jurisdiction of this case.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30466

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIE JOHNSON,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. CR-94-30022-ALL

- - - - - - - - - -

February 29, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Willie Johnson argues that the disparity in the penalty

provisions and sentencing guidelines applicable to crack cocaine

and cocaine powder violates his equal protection rights. We have

rejected the argument that the sentencing guidelines for crack

cocaine and cocaine powder violate the Equal Protection Clause. 

See United States v. Watson, 953 F.2d 895, 897-98 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 504 U.S. 928 (1992). We have reviewed the record

and the briefs and find no reversible error.

AFFIRMED.
1

Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2010-4344 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NE-32-AD

Add the work hours, parts cost, and number of U.S. registered products to the table below. When you are 

finished, click on the “Update Fields” button to automatically fill in the totals.

Update Fields

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours 

(include 

access, testing,

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Removal & 

replacement of heat 

shield

5 425 1832 2257 935 2,110,295

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: Number

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: 2,110,295

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $Warranty

On-Condition Costs: 

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00
2

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* ☐ NO ☒

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* ☐ NO ☒

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES ☐ NO ☒

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* ☐ NO ☒

*Explanation: