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

Certification of Principal Executive Officer
of Periodic Report Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) and Rule 15d-14(a)

I,
Daniel A. Ninivaggi, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Tropicana Entertainment Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



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



Date:
March 11, 2011

/s/ DANIEL A. NINIVAGGI Daniel A. Ninivaggi Interim Chief Executive Officer and Interim President
(Principal Executive Officer)


---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 31.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Terreno Realty Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this 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 report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure
controls and procedures,
or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures
to be designed under our
supervision, 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
report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the
effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure
controls and procedures
and presented in this
report our conclusions
about the effectiveness
of the disclosure
controls and procedures,
as of the end of the
period covered by this
report based on such
evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report
any change in the
registrants internal
control over financial
reporting that occurred
during the registrants
most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual
report) that has
materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the
registrants internal
control over financial
reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant
deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal
control over financial
reporting which are
reasonably likely to
adversely affect the
registrants ability to
record, process,
summarize and report
financial information;
and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not
material, that involves
management or other
employees who have a
significant role in the
registrants internal
control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Michael A. CokeChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### Wilma Jean JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Elmo JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 3992.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Oct. 27, 1972.

Roche & Rougeau, by Alvis J. Roche, Lake Charles, for plaintiff-appellant.

Hall & Coltharp, by W. E. Hall, Jr., DeRidder, for defendant-appellee.

Before FRUGÉ, CULPEPPER, and DOMENGEAUX, JJ.

DOMENGEAUX, Judge.

For the reasons this day handed down in the case of Johnson v. Johnson, our number 3993, 268 So.2d 114, the issue presented by the appeal taken herein has become moot and accordingly this appeal is dismissed at appellant’s costs.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55427-55428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28242]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[NAFTA-01405]


McDonnell Douglas, Long Beach, California; Notice of Negative 
Determination on Reconsideration

    On May 22, 1997, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former 
workers of the subject firm. The petitioner, United Automobile, 
Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 148, 
presented evidence that the Department's investigation was incomplete. 
The notice was published in the Federal Register on June 10, 1997 (62 
FR 31629).
    The petitioner asserts that McDonnell Douglas used contract workers 
from Mexico and Canada to produce certain components of both commercial 
and military aircraft, which adversely affected employment for at least 
two bargaining unit classifications.
    The Department initially denied NAFTA-TAA to the McDonnell Douglas

[[Page 55428]]

worker group because criterion (1) of the group eligibility 
requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of Section 250 of the Trade Act of 
1974, as amended, was not met. The level of employment at the subject 
firm increased during the time period relevant to the investigation.
    Findings on reconsideration show that since the NAFTA petition was 
filed on behalf of workers producing commercial aircraft, the 
Department's investigation was not limited to individual worker groups 
within the Long Beach production facility, but instead, covered all 
workers at McDonnell Douglas producing commercial aircraft.
    Other findings on reconsideration reveal that criteria (3) and (4) 
of the group eligibility requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of Section 
250 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, were not met for the 
McDonnell Douglas workers. There were no company or customer imports of 
commercial aircraft, nor was there a shift in the production of 
commercial aircraft from Long Beach to Mexico or Canada.
Conclusion
    After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative 
determination of eligibilily to apply for adjustment assistance and 
NAFTA-TAA for workers and former workers of McDonnell Douglas, Long 
Beach, California.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 10th day of October 1997.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-28242 Filed 10-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### Ex parte Richard William BRADY.

77-483.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 26, 1978.

SHORES, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
JOINT COMMUNIQUE BY FRANCE, GERMANY, ITALY, SPAIN, THE UNITED 

KINGDOM AND THE UNITED STATES

ON THE OCCASION OF THE PUBLICATION OF THE

“MODEL INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TO IMPROVE TAX 

COMPLIANCE AND IMPLEMENT FATCA”

For many years France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States have 

been partners in countering offshore tax evasion and improving international tax compliance so 

that all citizens pay their fair share of taxes due under the law.

Recently we have intensified our co-operation by collaborating on the development of a “Model 

Intergovernmental Agreement to Improve Tax Compliance and Implement FATCA”.

This Model Agreement establishes a framework for reporting by financial institutions of certain 

financial account information to their respective tax authorities, followed by automatic exchange 

of such information under existing bilateral tax treaties or tax information exchange agreements. 

It addresses the legal issues that had been raised in connection with the Foreign Account Tax 

Compliance Act, simplifies its implementation for financial institutions and provides for 

reciprocal information exchange.

We now look forward to a speedy conclusion of bilateral agreements based on this Model, 

including by other jurisdictions.

Co-operation will continue with a view to pursuing equivalent levels of reciprocal information 

exchange and to achieving maximum consistency and standardisation in the technical 

implementation of the agreed information exchange. More detailed guidance will be 

forthcoming.

This is an important step forward in establishing a common approach to combat tax evasion 

based on automatic exchange of information. France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United 

Kingdom and the United States will, in close cooperation with other partner countries, the 

OECD and where appropriate the EU, work towards common reporting and due diligence 

standards to support a move to a more global system to most effectively combat tax evasion 

while minimising compliance burdens.

###
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-60139

 

BERNARDINO BERRUN-PLATA,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

--------------------

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A37-208-858

--------------------

March 7, 2002

Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bernardino Berrun-Plata petitions for review of an order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) holding that BerrunPlata’s state conviction for felony driving while intoxicated was

an aggravated felony warranting his removal from this country. 

The respondent has moved to dismiss the petition for review and

to remand the case to the BIA for reconsideration in light of

United States v. Chapa-Garza, 243 F.3d 921, 927 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Berrun-Plata has not replied to the respondent’s motion to

remand. 
No. 01-60139

-2-

Berrun-Plata’s petition for review is GRANTED. The order of

the BIA is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED to the BIA for

disposition consistent with Chapa-Garza, 243 F.3d at 927. All

other outstanding motions are DENIED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARAKSI SEROPOVNA TOKRAMADZHYAN, AKA Araksi Seropovna Tokramdzhyan,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 71369

Agency No. A028

- 137

- 853

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 23, 2017 **

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Araksi Seropovna Tokramadzhyan , a native and citizen of Armenia,

petitions for review of an immigration judge’ s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.31(a) that s he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and

* This dis position is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 26 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 71369

thus is not entitled to relief from her reinstated remo val order. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Martinez v. Sessions

, No. 14

- 70339, 2017

WL 4552543 (9th Cir. Oct. 12, 2017)

. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s

factual findings, Andrade

- Garcia v. Lynch , 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2 016), and

w e deny the petition for review.

Subst antial evidence supports the IJ’ s conclusion that Tokramadzhyan failed

to establish a reasonable possibil ity of future persecution in Armenia on account of

a protected ground. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft , 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir. 2003)

(to qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that it is more

probable than not that she would suffer future persecution); see also Nagoulko v.

INS , 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too

speculative”).

Substantia l evidence also supports the conclusion that Tokramadzhyan failed

to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or

acquiescence of the Armenian go vernment. See Andrade

- Garcia , 828 F.3d at 836

-

37.

The government’s unopposed motion to supplement the administrative

record (Docket Entry No. 14) is granted.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
SECTION II 

YRC, Inc. / USF Holland, Inc. 

37.2.1
37.2.2
37.2.3
37.2.4
37.2.5
37.2.6
37.2.7









37.2.17
37.2.18
37.2.19
37.2.20
37.2.21
37.2.22

37.2.24
37.2.25
37.2.26






























































37.2.89
37.2.90
37.2.91
37.2.92
37.2.93
37.2.94
37.2.95
37.2.96
37.2.97
37.2.98
37.2.99

37.2.101
37.2.102
37.2.103
37.2.104
37.2.105
37.2.106
37.2.107
37.2.108
37.2.109
37.2.110
37.2.111
37.2.112
37.2.113
37.2.114
37.2.115

Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department
37.2.116
37.2.117
37.2.118

Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department

Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department
37.2.119
37.2.120
37.2.121
37.2.122
37.2.123
37.2.124
37.2.125
37.2.126
37.2.127
37.2.128
37.2.129
37.2.130
37.2.131
37.2.132
37.2.133
37.2.134
37.2.135
37.2.136
37.2.137
37.2.138
37.2.139
37.2.140
37.2.141
37.2.142
37.2.143

Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department

Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department
37.2.144
37.2.145
37.2.146

Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department

Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department
37.2.147
37.2.148
37.2.149
37.2.150
37.2.151

Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department
37.2.152
37.2.153
37.2.154
37.2.155
37.2.156
37.2.157
37.2.158
37.2.159
37.2.160

Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department
37.2.161
37.2.162
37.2.163
37.2.164
37.2.165
37.2.166
37.2.167
37.2.168
37.2.169
37.2.170

Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department Redacted by U.S. Treasury Department
#### In the Matter of Herman I. BRETAN.

No. 70-30.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 12, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Lamar Warren, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Billy Joe DUPONT.

No. 62771.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 2, 1978.

In re: Billy Joe Dupont, applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition. Parish of St. John the Baptist.

Denied in part; granted in part. Bond reduced to $3,500.00. Denied in other respects.
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   In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gary DeRoos, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Gary DeRoos, Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   By: /s/ Gary DeRoos _______________ Gary DeRoos Chief Financial Officer January 13, 2011
#### Clinton HANKERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-27.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 14, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CFO CERTIFICATION



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



In connection with
the Annual Report of Advantage Oil & Gas Ltd. (“Advantage”) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ending December 31,
2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kelly I. Drader, President
and Chief Financial Officer of Advantage, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Advantage.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date:  March 23, 2012 | /s/ Kelly I. Drader    
|--------------------- | -----------------------
|                      | Kelly I. Drader        
|                      | Chief Financial Officer
($) (thousands) ($millions) ($) 

0 <= 15,000 4,196 1,909 455

15,000 <= 30,000 5,361 3,732 696

30,000 <= 40,000 2,636 2,300 873

40,000 <= 50,000 2,347 2,102 896

50,000 <= 60,000 1,992 1,855 931

60,000 <= 75,000 2,374 2,351 990

75,000 <= 100,000 2,620 2,917 1,113

100,000 <= 200,000 4,126 5,027 1,218

200,000 and over 0 0 0

Total 25,820 22,222 861

Notes:

This table includes families with an American opportunity tax credit, a lifetime learning credit or a student loan 

interest deduction. Families with negative income are excluded from the lowest income class but included in 

the total line.

Families Receiving Key Education Tax Benefits

 Families with Key 

 Adjusted Gross Income Education Tax Benefits Total Benefit Average Benefit 

Tax Year 2016

U.S. Department of the Treasury

Office of Tax Analysis

January 8, 2015
Exhibit 10.4


 





AMENDMENT
#1 TO THE SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE DATED DECEMBER 26, 2017 


 


THIS
AMENDMENT #1 (the “Amendment”) TO THE SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE dated December
26, 2017, is made effective as of January 3, 2018, by and between Reign Sapphire Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
and _________________________, a _________________________ limited liability company (the “Holder”) (collectively the “Parties”).


 


BACKGROUND


 


A.     The
Company and Holder are the parties to that certain securities purchase agreement (the “SPA”) and convertible promissory
note in the principal amount of $147,000.00 (the “Note”), all dated December 26, 2017; and


 


B.      The
Parties desire to amend the SPA and Note, as set forth expressly below, to acknowledge the actual date of closing of the transactions
contemplated by the SPA and Note.


 


NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the execution and delivery of the Amendment and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:


 


1.          All
references in the SPA and Note to December 26, 2017 shall be replaced with January 3, 2018.


 


2.          This
Amendment shall be deemed part of, but shall take precedence over and supersede any provisions to the contrary contained in the
SPA and Note. Except as specifically modified hereby, all of the provisions of the SPA and Note, which are not in conflict with
the terms of this Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect.


 


[Signature
page to follow]


 



    1 


     


    




 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.


 





	Reign Sapphire Corporation	 	
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	 	By:	 
	Name:	Joseph Segelman	 	Name:	
	Title:	Chief Executive Officer	 	Title:	



 



    2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Prior year data was restated to reflect pooling-of-interests merger effective
December 29, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-1999             JAN-02-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1998             JUL-04-1997
<CASH>                                          55,407                  41,445
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,222                  75,922
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,613                   1,439
<INVENTORY>                                     61,720                  58,986
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               204,487                 189,772
<PP&E>                                         125,816                  96,939
<DEPRECIATION>                                  62,137                  43,563
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 314,603                 270,616
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,076                  88,023
<BONDS>                                         45,830                  46,668
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        83,230                  61,964
<OTHER-SE>                                      93,213                  71,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   314,603                 270,616
<SALES>                                        269,002                 245,341
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               269,002                 245,341
<CGS>                                          198,359                 179,988
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  198,359                 179,988
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                55,595                  38,283
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,134                   2,107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,258                  25,816
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,847                   8,303
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,411                  17,513
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                 (2,062)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,411                  15,451
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24                    0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23                    0.39
<FN>
<F1>Primary EPS represents basic and diluted represents assuming full dilution
under new fas 128
</FN>
        





</TABLE>