alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10.1
                            LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

     This Legal Services  Agreement (the  "Agreement") is entered into this 12th
day of July,  2001 is by and amongst  Dynamic I-T, Inc. (the "Company") and M.A.
Littman ("Attorney").

         WHEREAS,  Attorney is providing legal services,  and has provided legal
services to Company in the past;

         WHEREAS,  the  Attorney  is  due  approximately  $40,000 as a result of
prior services rendered to the Company to date;

         NOW  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of the mutual  covenants  contained
herein  and other  good and  valuable  consideration  receipt  whereof is hereby
acknowledged it is agreed.

     1. The Company  hereby has  engaged the  Attorney  for legal  services  and
wishes to pay  Attorney  and has  agreed  to  payment  of fees due for  services
already rendered through issuance of stock.

     2. In  consideration  of the  services  already  provided,  Attorney  shall
receive a fee equal to 333,333 shares of the Company's  common stock which shall
be issued for $40,000 of the accrual due and owing as a result of prior services
rendered to the Company by the Attorney. Further, the Company will issue 166,667
shares for services to be rendered in the immediate future.

     3. The Company will  register  all the  compensation  shares  pursuant to a
registration statement on Form S-8.

     4. Except as otherwise provided herein,  any notice or other  communication
to any party  pursuant  to or relating to this  Agreement  and the  transactions
provided  for  herein  shall be  deemed  to have been  given or  delivered  when
deposited in the United States Mail,  registered  or certified,  and with proper
postage and  registration  or  certification  fees  prepaid,  addressed at their
principal  place of business or to such other  address as may be  designated  by
either party in writing.


<PAGE>

     5. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted pursuant to the laws
of the state of Colorado. By entering into this Agreement,  the parties agree to
the  jurisdiction  of the  Colorado  courts  with  venue  in  Jefferson,  County
Colorado.  In the event of any breach of this  Agreement,  the prevailing  party
shall be entitled to recover all costs including reasonable attorney's fees.

     6. This  Agreement may be executed in any number of  counterparts,  each of
which when so executed an delivered  shall be deemed an  original,  and it shall
not be  necessary,  in making proof of this  Agreement to produce or account for
more than one counterpart.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties  hereto have  subscribed  their hands and
seals the day and year first above written.

ATTORNEY:                                 COMPANY:
M.A. Littman                              DYNAMIC I-T, Inc.

/s/M.A. Littman                           /s/Spencer H. Young
------------------                        -----------------------------
M.A. Littman                              Spencer H. Young, President
**Exhibit 31(b)**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. § 7241) 

 

I, Carol M. Herndon, Chief Accounting Officer, certify that: 

 

1) I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Delhaize America, Inc.; 

 

2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact 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 presentin 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 definedin 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, includingits 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 theeffectiveness 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 mostrecent 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 havedisclosed, 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 inthe 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 16, 2005
#### PINELLAS COUNTY, etc., Petitioner, v. Derrill McATEER et al., etc., Respondents.

No. 73-849.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 28, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed.
<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT 99.3

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Joseph A. Santangelo, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1. This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Orleans Homebuilders, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and

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



Date:    November 12, 2002



                                         /s/ Joseph A. Santangelo
                                         ------------------------
                                         Joseph A. Santangelo
                                         Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32(1)

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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Florida Public Utilities Company (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I, John T. English, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/John T. English

John T. English

Chief Executive Officer

August 11, 2004
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8188 

To amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to provide complaint and 

burden of proof requirements for certain actions for breach of fiduciary 

duty. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 

Mr. EMMER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to provide 

complaint and burden of proof requirements for certain 

actions for breach of fiduciary duty. 

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 ‘‘Mutual Fund Litiga5 tion Reform Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8188 IH

1 SEC. 2. COMPLAINT AND BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRE2 MENTS FOR CERTAIN ACTIONS FOR BREACH 

3 OF FIDUCIARY DUTY. 

4 Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 

5 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–35(b)) is amended by adding at the 

6 end the following: 

7 ‘‘(7) In any such action brought by a security 

8 holder of a registered investment company on behalf 

9 of such company— 

10 ‘‘(A) the complaint shall state with par11 ticularity all facts establishing a breach of fidu12 ciary duty, and, if an allegation of any such 

13 facts is based on information and belief, the 

14 complaint shall state with particularity all facts 

15 on which that belief is formed; and 

16 ‘‘(B) such security holder shall have the 

17 burden of proving a breach of fiduciary duty by 

18 clear and convincing evidence.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>       5
<CIK>      0000027099
<NAME>    DATATAB, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          8,682
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 287,301
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                     1,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              297,183
<PP&E>                                        126,680
<DEPRECIATION>                                122,050
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                302,440
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         153,295
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         788,955
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (658,410)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  302,440
<SALES>                                       496,301
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              532,355
<CGS>                                         457,650
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 581,116
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (48,761)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (48,761)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (48,761)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)





</TABLE>
1 

### Troutman, Jake (FAA)

From: Troutman, Jake (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 6:08 PM

To: 'mjlewis@bechtel.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information - Bechtel Equipment Operations, Inc

[FAA-2014-0898]

Dear Mr. Michael J. Lewis:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

‐ 2014

‐ 0898). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

• Describe the aircraft make(s) and model(s) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include

the following: size, maximum weight (including payload), and aircraft type (i.e.

‐ fixed

‐ wing,rotorcraft, lighter

‐ than

‐ air). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

• Provide information regarding the radio frequency spectrum(s). This information can be located in the aircraft

manual(s).

• Provide description of proximity to airports.

• Provide a description of the proposed pilot medical requirements.

• Your petition references a pre

‐ flight inspection and/or briefing. Describe the process used to determine if the

UAS is airworthy and in safe condition for operation in the NAS.

• Describe the process used to document UAS discrepancies and the corrective action taken in the aircraft

record. Examples of processes include (1) the petitioner has elected to use its own process to maintain its UAS and

ensure that only airworthy and safe UAS will be allowed to operate in the NAS and (2) the petitioner has elected to

maintain its UAS in accordance with the manufacturer maintenance and inspection recommendations.

• Your petition references the material listed below, however the material was not submitted for the

record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials:

o Skycatch UAS Flight Manual

Please submit the additional information (non

‐ proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e

‐ mail to jake.troutman@faa.gov

. If you want us

to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 02/18/2015. If we do not

receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267

‐ 9521.

Sincerely,

Jake J Troutman

Program Analyst | Rulemaking

FAA Office of Aviation Safety

Airmen and Airspace Rules Division2 202

‐ 267

‐ 9521
EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
RSI Systems, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(commission File number 33-95912) on Form S-8 of RSI Systems, Inc. of our report
dated September 12, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of RSI
Systmes, Inc. and subsidiary as of June 30, 1997 and 1996 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended June 30, 1997, which report 
appears in the June 30, 1997 annual report on Form 10-KSB of RSI Systems, Inc.

                                                       /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
September 25, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           6,767
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  171,061
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (15,252)
<INVENTORY>                                    126,663
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               333,285
<PP&E>                                         257,100
<DEPRECIATION>                               (120,285)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 784,189
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          153,637
<BONDS>                                        434,781
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,262
<OTHER-SE>                                     144,476
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   784,189
<SALES>                                        459,536
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               459,536
<CGS>                                          258,496
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  425,285
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,638
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,090
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    623
<INCOME-TAX>                                       311
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                312
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       312
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
#### MICHAEL CONSTRUCTION CO., a Florida corporation, and Leon Gor-finkel, Appellants, v. Fred G. SMITH, International Ventures, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Edmund düPont d/b/a Francis L. duPont, & Co., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 70-705.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 2, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 12, 1971.

*564Nestor Morales, Miami, for appellants.

Myron B. Berman, Smathers & Thompson, and Earl D. Waldin, Jr., Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were the plaintiffs in the trial court. They appeal a final judgment for the defendants-appellees which was entered by the court after a trial without jury. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment which would establish appellants’ right to receive a sum of money deposited by one of the appellees with a real estate broker as a deposit upon a proposed purchase of real property from the appellant Michael Construction Co. The sale was not completed because of the purchaser’s failure to proceed with the purchase at the time and place stipulated in the deposit receipt contract.

The trial judge found that the equities of the cause were with the defendants and denied the relief sought. The judgment sets forth three findings as determinative. We do not pass upon the legal sufficiency of the first and third grounds contained in the judgment because the second ground is clearly sufficient to sustain the judgment. The second ground is:

> * * * * * * “(b) That as a matter of Law, the evidence submitted to this Court relative to an agency relationship between the Plaintiff, LEON GORFINKEL, and the Plaintiff, MICHAEL CONSTRUCTION CO., a Florida corporation is totally insufficient to establish such a relationship.”

The record shows that the agreement to sell was signed only by Leon Gorfinkel. It appears that he was a stockholder in the corporate entity which owned the real estate described in the deposit receipt. The complaint alleged that Gorfinkel was acting as agent for the appellant, Michael Construction Co. Appellants’ failure to prove this essential allegation of his complaint requires the affirmance of the judgment for the defendants. Miller v. Chase & Co., 88 Fla. 500, 102 So. 553 (1924); Bogue Electric Mfg. Co. v. Coconut Grove Bank, 269 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1959); 3 C.J.S. Agency § 315b.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ENACTED BYSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

**In connection with the annualreport on Form 10-K of THQ Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Edward K. Zinser, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:**

** **

**(1)**                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

** **

**(2)**                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Edward K. Zinser                                  |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Edward K. Zinser                                      |
|   | Chief Financial Officer  and Chief Accounting Officer |
|   | June 8, 2005                                     |

 

----
#### Larry GOLDFARB, Appellant, v. HAGLE SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., Appellee.

No. 73-1008.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 19, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Richard B. Keating, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 31.1

Certification

I,
David J. Anderson, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sauer-Danfoss 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 annual 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 we have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer 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:



|Date: March 15, 2004 | /s/DAVID J. ANDERSONDavid J. Anderson
President and Chief Executive Officer
|-------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
257 La. 163

#### Carol MONJURE v. ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANIES.

No. 50974.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1970.

In re: Argonaut Southwest Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 239 So.2d 488.

Writ denied. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law.