alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

** **

I, Brian Chase, Chief Financial Officer of Garrison CapitalInc., certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GarrisonCapital Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder 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 otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of and for the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-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 relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) [Omitted];

 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth 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 auditorsand the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: May 13, 2013
/**
 * @file
 *
 * when switching to mobile view move the sidebar menu (is any) into the Primary Menu region, and when switching to
 * non-mobile view move the same menu back
 */
(function ($, Drupal) {

  /**
   * check the window width and ensure the sidebar menu is in the correct location
   * @constructor
   */
  Drupal.DhsSubthemeSidebarMenuPosition = function() {
    if ($(window).width() <= 1008) {
      // sidebar menu needs to be in the 'Primary Menu" region
      // check to see if it is already there
      if ($('div.region.region-primary-menu ul.usa-sidenav').length) {
        // the sidebar menu is already there, do nothing
      }
      else {
        // move the sidebar menu -- we specifically want to leave a placeholder
        $('div.region.region-sidebar-first ul.usa-sidenav').replaceWith('<ul class="usa-sidebar-placeholder"></ul>').insertBefore('ul.usa-nav__primary');
      }
    }
    else {
      // sidebar menu needs to be in the "Sidebar First" region
      // check to see if it is already there
      if ($('div.region.region-sidebar-first ul.usa-sidenav').length) {
        // the sidebar menu is already there, do nothing
      }
      else {
        // move the sidebar menu into the sidebar
        let menu = $('div.region.region-primary-menu ul.usa-sidenav').detach();
        $('ul.usa-sidebar-placeholder').replaceWith(menu);
      }
    }
    Drupal.attachBehaviors();
  };


  $(document).ready(function() {
    // check to see if there is a sidebar menu on this page (not all pages have them)
    if ($('ul.usa-sidenav').length >= 1) {
      // check to ensure the sidebar menu is in the correct position
      Drupal.DhsSubthemeSidebarMenuPosition();
      // make sure we check again anytime the window is resized
      $(window).resize(function (){
        Drupal.DhsSubthemeSidebarMenuPosition();
      });
    }
  });
}(jQuery, Drupal, drupalSettings));
Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements and
in the related prospectuses (Form S-3 No. 33-96756,  Form S-3 No. 33-95952, Form
S-3 No. 333-17805,  Form S-3 No. 333-19879,  Form S-3 No.  333-19879-01 and Form
S-8 No.  33-90668)  of Evans  Withycombe  Residential,  Inc. of our report dated
January 31, 1997,  with respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements  and
schedule of Evans Withycombe  Residential,  Inc.  included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.



                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Phoenix, Arizona
February 3, 1997
                                      23.1
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

May 9, 2019

 

Via EDGAR

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

Judiciary Plaza

450 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Re: Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of VOC Energy Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Trust.

 

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 
|     | The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company,   N.A. |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------|
|     | Trustee for VOC Energy Trust                      |
|     |                                              |   |
|     | By:                                               | /s/ MICHAEL J. ULRICH |
|     |                                              | Michael J. Ulrich |
| * * | * *                                          | *Vice President and Trust   Officer* |

 

----
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00105

- CV

Richard Clifford

v.

Shari McCall

- Gruesen, as Trustee of
the Gruesen Family Trust §

§

§

§ From County Cour t at Law

o f Cooke County (CV11

- 00487 )

October 23, 2014

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot



### JUDGMENT ON REHEARING

After considering the Appellant Richard Clifford’s motion for rehearing, we

deny the motion. We withdraw our September 4, 2014 memorandum opin ion

and judgment and substitute the following.

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT CO URT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot

______________ Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
#### Margaret KIRCHHEINER, Appellant, v. Otto Von KIRCHHEINER, Appellee.

No. 72-1218.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 5, 1973.

*640Joseph T. Woodward, Miami, for appellant.

Albert I. Caskill, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

The marriage between the appellant and appellee was dissolved upon the petition of the appellant wife. She was also awarded $25.00 per week rehabilitative alimony for a period of three months. The appel-lee was required to pay reasonable medical expenses for appellant for a period of three months and attorney fees in the sum of $450.00 for her attorney, plus costs.

The court stated in the final judgment that it would not make any ruling on the wife’s demand that the husband pay and be responsible for the wife’s unpaid medical bills incurred during their marriage. However, the court retained jurisdiction of the action to enter further orders as are proper.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in awarding her only $25.00 per week rehabilitative alimony and medical care for only three months. She likewise seeks review of the award of attorney fees on the ground that the amount of the award was inadequate.

We have considered these contentions in the light of the record and controlling principles of law and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated as to these contentions.

The appellant has also assigned as error the refusal of the trial judge to rule on whether she is entitled to an award from the husband for medical expenses incurred by her during the marriage. Both parties have argued the merits of the issue, presuming that the trial judge’s action was a denial of appellant’s claim for these expenses. We feel such arguments are premature at this time. The trial judge refused to act on this issue noting that the parties might be able to reach their own solu-tiqn in this regard. The court did, however, retain further jurisdiction of the cause. Tt is our opinion that this issue is not now properly before us. Until the trial judge has had the occasion to go to the merits of the issue and to take a decisive action on the matter, there is no action by the trial court that is the proper subject of our appellate scrutiny and we will not substantively determine the issue as a court of original jurisdiction. The retention of jurisdiction by the trial court would allow a decisive action upon the issue if the same is properly presented to it.

No reversible error having been demonstrated, the final judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, 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

May 27, 2009 

0518 

Order 

 

May 27, 2009 

138377 

DEBORAH A. PERCIVAL, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138377 

 COA: 287745 

WCAC: 07-000046 

OAKLAND COUNTY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 18, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keith Davis, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bernard Jackson, J.), rendered June 8, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of two and one-half to five years, unanimously affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s argument on appeal, the identification evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), was legally sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The weight of the evidence consisting of the complainant’s in-court and lineup identification of defendant establishes that defendant was the person who robbed the complainant of $16 while she was waiting for an elevated train *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490).

Defendant’s absence from the charge conference was not a material stage of the trial at which defendant’s absence, without objection, affected any substantial right of defendant, or bore any reasonably substantial relation to defendant’s opportunity to defend against the charges. *(People v Romero,*
      *274168 AD2d 316.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Smith, JJ.
----

----

I Information

Commission

----

Euro exchange rates (1)

3 March 2005

(2005/C 55/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----

----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3708 — Apollo/DirecTV/Hughes Network Systems)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2005/C 55/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  Available on DG COMP website:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

----

----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3700 — EDP/LogicaCMG/Edinfor)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2005/C 55/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  Available on DG COMP website:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

----

----

COM documents other than legislative proposals adopted by the Commission

(2005/C 55/04)

These texts are available on EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/

----

----

Ex-post publicity of Eurostat grants in 2004

(2005/C 55/05)

In accordance with Article 110(2) of the Financial Regulation and Article 169 of its implementing rules, the public is hereby informed of the actions which benefited from a Eurostat grant during 2004.

The electronic file covering the actions in question can be found in the form of a list on the EUROPA server (http://europa.eu.int). This list can be accessed via ‘Institutions’ — ‘European Commission’ — ‘Statistics’ — ‘other activities’ — ‘Calls for tenders and grants’ and then by entering the file ‘Eurostat — List of grants awarded in 2004’.

The list indicates the file number, the unit concerned, the name and the country of the beneficiary, the title of the action, the amount of the commitment (grant) and the percentage of co-financing.

All these actions were the subject of ex-ante publicity.

----

II Preparatory Acts

Commission

----

Legislative proposals adopted by the Commission

(2005/C 55/06)

These texts are available on EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/

----
LNCE-12.28.2013-EX10.31






EXHIBIT 10.31
                            
13024 Ballantyne Corporate Place
Harris Building Suite 900
Charlotte, NC 28277
(704) 554-1421




December 13, 2013 










Michael A. Warehime 
Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. 
1250 York Street 
Hanover, PA  17331


Re:  Compensation 


Dear Mike,


This is to confirm that the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of July 21, 2010, as amended, among Lance, Inc., Lima Merger Corp. and Snyder’s of Hanover, Inc., is hereby further amended to provide that your annual compensation for serving as Chairman of the Board of Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. for 2014 be the same as provided in the Agreement and Plan of Merger, as amended, and as modified and specified in the letters dated February 9, 2012 and February 8, 2013 to you from David V. Singer. 


Very truly yours, 


/s/ Carl E. Lee, Jr.                    


Carl E. Lee, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
#### MACO SUPPLY CORP., a Georgia corporation, Appellant, v. Anthony J. MASCIARELLI, Appellee.

No. 67-984.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Aug. 13, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 6, 1968.

*266Dixon, Dejarnette, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell and Dennis G. King, Miami, for appellant.

Horton & Schwartz, Street & Greenfield, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant below, Maco Supply Corp., appeals from a final judgment, after a jury verdict, for the plaintiff below, Masciarelli.

The defendant, Maco, originally sold certain pool tables and billiard equipment under a conditional sales contract to Mas-ciarelli. It filed a replevin action against Masciarelli and obtained a final judgment in replevin against him for the possession of this personalty. Thereafter Masciarelli filed this law suit against Maco alleging breach of oral warranty; breach of oral representations and promises; and alleged that the actions of defendant were wilful, obstinate and malicious, thereby entitling him to compensatory and punitive damages. The verdict and final judgment were for the plaintiff in the sum of $13,000 compensatory and $23,600 punitive damages. Defendant has appealed from the final judgment.

Defendant’s first claim for reversal is based on the ground that the claims set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint were barred by estoppel by judgment, res judicata and the compulsory counterclaim rule.

In other words, defendant says plaintiff’s claims should have been asserted and litigated by Masciarelli in the original replevin action in which he was a defendant; and that he is barred as plaintiff below, from asserting them in this suit under the aforesaid principles. This claim for reversal is without merit. See Fla.Stat. § 46.08 (1965), F.S.A.; Seven Seas Frozen Products v. Fast Frozen Foods, Fla.1949, 43 So.2d 181; Goranson v. Maximo Moorings Marine Center, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 745; and R.C.P. 1.010, 30 F.S.A.

Turning next to the question of punitive damages, we note that an award of punitive damages for a breach of contract is generally not permitted in Florida unless the breach amounts to an independent, wilful tort. See 9 Fla.Jur. Damages § 19. Here, the fact issues submitted to the jury were whether there was a breach of an implied or oral warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, which was ex con-tractu in nature, and whether there was a breach of an oral agreement to forbear. There was no showing of an independent *267tort, separate and apart from the breach of contract. See Griffith v. Shamrock Village, Fla.1957, 94 So.2d 854. Even though the acts of a party in violating a contract, may be wilful and flagrant they must also constitute an independent tort in order to constitute a predicate for an award of punitive damages. Fountainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Kaplan, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 503.

Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed as to the award of compensatory damages and reversed as to the award of punitive damages.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

It is so Ordered.
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 13 December 2004

in Case T-8/03 El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark - Figurative mark EMILIO PUCCI - Opposition by the proprietor of the national figurative marks EMIDIO TUCCI - Partial refusal to register)

(2005/C 45/52)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-8/03: El Corte Inglés, SA, established in Madrid (Spain), represented by J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: P. Bullock and O. Montalto), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court, being Emilio Pucci Srl, established in Florence (Italy), represented by P.L. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti and M. Boletto, lawyers – action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2002 (Joined Cases R 700/2000-4 and R 746/2000-4) relating to the opposition entered by the proprietor of the national figurative marks EMIDIO TUCCI against registration of the figurative mark EMILIO PUCCI as a Community trade mark – the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N. Forwood, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 December 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003

----
----

Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order brought on 28 January 2005 by Names b.v. against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-2/05 SA)

(2005/C 82/12)

An application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 January 2005 by Names b.v., represented by R. Nathan, avocat.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

----
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.3
2016 Equity Incentive Plan


The 2016 Equity Incentive Plan provides for the issuance of equity incentive awards in the form of (i) non-qualified stock options; and (ii) time-based restricted stock units.


	
			
	Executive Officer
	Time-Based Restricted Stock Units 
(# shares)
	Non-Qualified Stock Options (# shares)

	Douglas C. Bryant
President and Chief Executive Officer
	12,815
	93,847

	Michael D. Abney, Jr.
Senior Vice President, Distribution
	4,805
	35,192

	Robert J. Bujarski
Senior Vice President, Business Development and General Counsel
	4,805
	35,192

	Werner Kroll
Senior Vice President, Research and Development
	4,805
	35,192

	Edward K. Russell
Senior Vice President, Global Commercial Operations
	4,805
	35,192

	Randall J. Steward
Chief Financial Officer
	5,339
	39,103

	John D. Tamerius
Senior Vice President, Strategic and External Affairs
	4,485
	32,846








The vesting period for the non-qualified stock options and restricted stock units is over four years with the first 50% of such equity awards vesting at the end of the second-year anniversary of the grant date and the remainder vesting 25% annually on each of the following two anniversaries thereafter.
Exhibit








 Exhibit 10.13


Summary of Compensation of Named Executive Officers
	
				
	Name
	Base Salary

	Thomas E. Gottwald
Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer
	$
	992,300
	


	Robert A. Shama
President, Afton Chemical Corporation
	$
	556,500
	


	Bruce R. Hazelgrove, III
Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer
	$
	437,700
	


	Brian D. Paliotti
Chief Financial Officer and Vice President
	$
	345,000
	


	Steven M. Edmonds *
Vice President, NewMarket Corporation
	$
	107,100
	









* Mr. Edmonds served as Vice President and General Counsel through December 31, 2015 and now serves as Vice President of NewMarket. He is expected to retire on March 31, 2016. The above amount represents his base salary to that date.