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





Certification
of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant
to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I,
William Morro, certify that:





1.  I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of InterAmerican Acquisition
Group Inc.;





2.  Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;





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





4.  I
am 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 I have:





(a)  designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under my 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 quarterly report is being prepared;





(b)  evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this quarterly report my 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 quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting the occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;
and





5.  I
have disclosed, based on my 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.








Date: May
14,
2008                                                                                               /s/  William
Morro


William
Morro


Chief
Executive Officer


(principal
executive officer and


principal
financial officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23(a)


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-22655 of Union Pacific Resources Group Inc. on Form S-3 and Nos. 333-22613
and 333-35641 of Union Pacific Resources Group Inc. on Form S-8, of our report
dated January 26, 1998 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Union
Pacific Resources Group Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP

Fort Worth, Texas

March 26, 1998
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 8, 2019

No. 04-18-00885-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.S.A. AND A.S.A., MINOR CHILDREN,

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17-1794-CV-C

Honorable Thomas Nathaniel Stuckey, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s first motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief is GRANTED. 

Appellant’s brief is due on or before January 15, 2019.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of January, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT
23.1
 
 CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
 
 We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Forms S-8
(Nos. 333-04479,
333-05923, 333-42111, 333-71025, 333-88451, 333-52162,
333-52166 and 333-74820) and Forms
S-3 (Nos. 333-14549, 333-23193, 333-39787, 333-49825, 333-65397, 333-66287,
333-69737, 333-72357 and 333-84017) of Talk
America Holdings, Inc. and its Subsidiaries of our
report **** dated
March 29, 2005 relating to the financial statements and financial statement
schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting, which appears in the Form 10-K.
  
  PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP
 Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
 March 29,
2005
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-5114, -5115

FRANCISCO JAVIER RIVERA AGREDANO and

ALFONSO CALDERON LEON,

Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims

in 05-CV-608, Judge Emily C. Hewitt.

ON MOTION

Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The cross-appellants move for leave to file a 19,000-word opening brief. The

cross-appellants also move for an extension of time to file their opening brief.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion for leave to file a 19,000-word opening brief is denied.

The motion for an extension of time is granted. The cross-appellants'

opening brief, not to exceed 16,500 words, is due no later than June 8, 2009.

FOR THE COURT

MAY 18 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

COUIVRWIA

Int ttU	(iMUL/11"

MAY 1 8 2009

Date

JAN lithionti

CLERK
cc:	Teresa Trucchi, Esq.

Patricia M. McCarthy, Esq.

s8

2008-5114	 - 2 -
exv10w2



 







Exhibit 10.2




[Hirschler Fleischer letterhead]




May 5, 2006




VIA FACSIMILE — 972-644-2411




TR Hidden Lake Partners, Ltd.

c/o Thompson Realty Corporation

2505 N. Plano Road, Suite 3000

Richardson, Texas 75082

Attn: W. T. Field.





			
	     Re:	 	Contract of Sale Between TR Hidden Lake Partners, Ltd., a Texas limited
partnership, as seller and Triple Net Properties, LLC, a Virginia limited liability
company, as purchaser





Dear Mr. Field:




     On behalf of our client, Triple Net Properties, LLC, the purchaser under the captioned
contract, I hereby request a one week extension of the Feasibility Period to May 12, 2006. If this
extension is acceptable, please sign below.



Very truly yours,




/s/ David F. Belkowitz




David F. Belkowitz




AGREED TO:




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	TR HIDDEN LAKE PARTNERS, LTD.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	TRDC Hidden Lake Partners, Ltd.,

General Partner	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	Thompson Realty Development Corporation,

General Partner	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ W. T. Field
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Its: President	 	 






/bh




cc: Mr. Gus Remppies
EX-10.1 Amendment No 1 to Consulting Agreement



 





Exhibit 10.1




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

CONSULTING AGREEMENT




     This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is executed this 5th day
of December, 2006, effective as of the 3rd day of January, 2007, by and between CATALYST
PHARMACEUTICAL PARTNERS, INC., a Delaware corporation (“Company”) and Charles O’Keeffe
(“Consultant”).



Preliminary Statements





	 	1.	 	The parties have previously entered into that certain Consulting Agreement dated
January 3, 2005 (the “Agreement”). Unless otherwise defined, capitalized terms used herein
have the meanings given to them in the Agreement.
	 
	 	2.	 	The parties wish to further amend the Agreement to reflect the terms set forth below.





Agreement




     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants set forth herein, and
for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:




	 	1.	 	Sections 1(c) and 1(d) of the Agreement are hereby amended by deleting all of their
text and replacing it with the following text:






(c) Duties and Responsibilities. During the Engagement Period, the
Consultant shall act on a part-time basis as a Senior Advisor to the Company. During
the Engagement Period, the Consultant shall be instructed with respect to the
Company’s requests for services by the Company’s Chief Executive Officer. Consultant
shall assist the Company in its regulatory strategy, marketing issues and other
corporate issues. Consultant agrees to offer services of five (5) hours per month,
with additional hours that may be agreed upon by mutual agreement between Consultant
and the Company and compensated as set forth in (d) below.




(d) Consulting Fee. In consideration of the Consultant’s services
hereunder, during the Engagement Period, the Consultant shall receive a monthly
consulting fee of One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00). Such fee
shall be paid in cash. Additional hours of consulting services provided hereunder
shall be compensated at the compensated at a rate of Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars
($250.00) per hour, payable in cash.




	 	2.	 	Consultant shall retain the shares of common stock previously granted to him under
Section 1(d) of the Agreement and the common stock purchase options previously granted to
him under Section 1(e) of the Agreement. The parties agree that no further
grants of stock or stock options are due under the Agreement and that no further stock or
stock options shall be payable under the Agreement.




1









 












	 	3.	 	Except as amended by the terms of this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force
and effect.





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date and year first set
forth above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL PARTNERS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Patrick J. McEnany
 	 
	 	 	Patrick J. McEnany 	 
	 	 	President and Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 
	 	CONSULTANT

 	 
	 	/s/ Charles B. O’Keeffe
 	 
	 	Charles B. O’Keeffe 	 
	 	 	 
	 




2
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1678 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the first-time 

homebuyer tax credit, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. REID, Mr. ISAKSON, and Ms. 

STABENOW) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the first-time homebuyer tax credit, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER TAX 

4 CREDIT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (h) of section 36 of the 

6 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘December 1, 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘June 1, 2010’’. 

8 (b) ELECTION TO TREAT PURCHASE IN PRIOR

9 YEAR.—Subsection (g) of section 36 of the Internal Rev10 enue Code of 1986 is amended— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1678 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘December 1, 2009’’ and insert2 ing ‘‘January 1, 2010’’, and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘In the 

4 case of a purchase of a principal residence after De5 cember 31, 2009, and before June 1, 2010, a tax6 payer may elect to treat such purchase as made on 

7 December 31, 2009, for purposes of this section 

8 (other than subsections (c) and (f)(4)(D)).’’. 

9 (c) EXTENSION OF WAIVER OF RECAPTURE.—Sub10 paragraph (D) of section 36(f)(4) of the Internal Revenue 

11 Code of 1986 is amended— 

12 (1) by striking ‘‘December 1, 2009’’ and insert13 ing ‘‘June 1, 2010’’, and 

14 (2) by striking ‘‘IN 2009’’ in the heading and in15 serting ‘‘AFTER 2008’’. 

16 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

17 this section shall apply to residences purchased after No18 vember 30, 2009. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.36
 
 Date of Grant:
    
    September 29, 2009Name of Participant:Number of Target RSUs:
 Company Shares RSUs Grant Date Participant Plan
 Agreement
 Vesting
 Forfeiture of Unvested RSUs
 Conversion into Ordinary Shares




---



##### 



Tax Treatment
 1 2
 Lock-up Period provided
  2




---



##### 



Restrictions on Transfer of Shares
 Certificates
 Shareholder Rights
 No Employment/Service Rights
 Terms of Plan, Interpretations
 Notices
  
    Entire Agreement
  3




---



##### 



Governing Law
 Counterparts
  SMART MODULAR TECHNOLOGIES
(WWH), INC.By:
    -s- Iain MacKenzieName:
    Iain MacKenzieTitle:
    President and CEOPARTICIPANT:By:Name:Address:  4




---



##### 



SCHEDULE A
 Performance Period:
    
    October 9, 2009  October 12, 2012
 Performance Criteria and RSUs to be Awarded:
  Performance of SMOD vs. IWC
    
    Awarded RSUsLower than 50%
    
    50% of Target RSUs50%  150%
    
    X% of Target RSUs, where X = over/under performanceHigher than 150%
    
    150% of Target RSUs
  As of Performance Period start date, October 9, 2009, the baseline is as follows:
 SMOD:
    
    $
    3.38
    *
    
    IWC:
    
    $
    35.84
    *
 *
    
    See Schedule B for the calculation of the baseline.  [A]
    
    
    
    
    
    [B]SMODs
    
    
    %
    
    
    IWCs
    
    
    %end date
    
    
    change
    
    
    end date
    
    
    changeaverage
    
    
    from
    
    
    average
    
    
    fromstock price
    
    
    $3.38
    
    
    stock price
    
    
    $35.84
    
    

A
 B
    
    
    A  B + 100% * TargetEX 1:
    
    $
    1.00
    
    
    
    (70
    %)
    
    $
    30.00
    
    
    
    (16
    %)
    
    
    (54
    %)
    
    Min.50% * 100K = 50KEX 2:
    
    $
    4.00
    
    
    
    18
    %
    
    $
    38.00
    
    
    
    6
    %
    
    
    12
    %
    
    
    112% * 100K = 112KEX 3:
    
    $
    3.00
    
    
    
    (11
    %)
    
    $
    38.00
    
    
    
    6
    %
    
    
    (17
    %)
    
    
    83% * 100K = 83KEX 4:
    
    $
    3.00
    
    
    
    (11
    %)
    
    $
    34.00
    
    
    
    (5
    %)
    
    
    (6
    %)
    
    
    94% * 100K = 94KEX 5:
    
    $
    3.50
    
    
    
    4
    %
    
    $
    34.00
    
    
    
    (5
    %)
    
    
    9
    %
    
    
    109% * 100K = 109KEX 6:
    
    $
    5.50
    
    
    
    63
    %
    
    $
    38.00
    
    
    
    6
    %
    
    
    57
    %
    
    Max.150% * 100K = 150K
 Performance Determination Date:
    
    Friday, October 12, 2012Vesting Date:
    
    Monday, October 15, 2012
  5
## Mount Zirkel/Rawah - Worst - Total Extinction Mount Zirkel/Rawah - Worst - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N T o t a l Extinction Site Method Year N SO4 Extinction MOZI1 NIA 2001 24 28.61 MOZI1 NIA 2001 24 6.77 MOZI1 NIA 2002 21 40.12 MOZI1 NIA 2002 21 4.9 MOZI1 NIA 2003 23 32.27 MOZI1 NIA 2003 23 4.74 MOZI1 NIA 2004 22 24.03 MOZI1 NIA 2004 22 4.58 

## 125.03 Total 20.99 Total 31.2575 Average 5.2475 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 17% Mount Zirkel/Rawah - Best - Total Extinction Mount Zirkel/Rawah - Best - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N T o t a l Extinction Site Method Year N SO4 Extinction MOZI1 NIA 2001 23 13.19 MOZI1 NIA 2001 23 2.31 MOZI1 NIA 2002 20 11.58 MOZI1 NIA 2002 20 1.33 MOZI1 NIA 2003 22 11.34 MOZI1 NIA 2003 22 1.21 MOZI1 NIA 2004 22 11.23 MOZI1 NIA 2004 22 1.27 

## 47.34 Total 6.12 Total 11.835 Average 1.53 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 13% Rocky Mountain - Worst - Total Extinction Rocky Mountain - Worst - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N T o t a l Extinction Site Method Year N SO4 Extinction ROMO1 NIA 2000 22 41.91 ROMO1 NIA 2000 22 6.37 ROMO1 NIA 2001 25 39.03 ROMO1 NIA 2001 25 9.67 ROMO1 NIA 2002 24 53.44 ROMO1 NIA 2002 24 9.41 ROMO1 NIA 2003 23 39.98 ROMO1 NIA 2003 23 6.81 ROMO1 NIA 2004 25 33.25 ROMO1 NIA 2004 25 7.28 

## 207.61 Total 39.54 Total 41.522 Average 7.908 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 19% Rocky Mountain - Best - Total Extinction Rocky Mountain - Best - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N T o t a l Extinction Site Method Year N SO4 Extinction ROMO1 NIA 2000 21 12.97 ROMO1 NIA 2000 21 1.66 ROMO1 NIA 2001 24 12.76 ROMO1 NIA 2001 24 1.52 ROMO1 NIA 2002 23 12.03 ROMO1 NIA 2002 23 0.93 ROMO1 NIA 2003 23 12.95 ROMO1 NIA 2003 23 1.35 ROMO1 NIA 2004 24 12.4 ROMO1 NIA 2004 24 1.18 

## 63.11 Total 6.64 Total 12.622 Average 1.328 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 11%
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4029

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SCOTTY TYRONE SIMMONS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., District Judge. (1:11-cr-00128-WO-1)

Submitted: July 26, 2012 Decided: August 1, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellant. Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Scotty Tyrone Simmons pled guilty to possession of a 

firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1), § 924(a)(2) (2006). On appeal, counsel has filed a 

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but 

raising the following issue: whether the district court erred in 

sentencing Simmons to 104 months of imprisonment. 

We review Simmons’ sentence for reasonableness using 

an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The first step in this review requires us 

to ensure that the district court committed no significant 

procedural error. United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 161 

(4th Cir. 2008). Procedural errors include improperly 

calculating the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, failing to 

consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, sentencing using 

clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the 

sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. Only if we find a sentence 

procedurally reasonable may we consider its substantive 

reasonableness. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th 

Cir. 2009). Here, we discern no basis to conclude that Simmons’ 

within-Guidelines sentence was either procedurally or 

substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Powell, 650 

F.3d 388, 395 (4th Cir.) (noting this court presumes sentence 
3

within applicable Guidelines range to be reasonable), cert. 

denied, 132 S. Ct. 350 (2011). Thus, this claim is without 

merit.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 

We therefore affirm Simmons’ conviction and sentence. This 

court requires that counsel inform Simmons, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Simmons requests that a petition be filed, 

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, 

then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Simmons. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### STATE of Alaska, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Respondent.

No. S-934.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

May 9, 1986.

Paul R. Lyle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Fairbanks, Norman C. Gorsuch, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

Before RABINOWITZ, C.J., and BURKE, MATTHEWS, COMPTON and MOORE, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This petition for review arises out of a Petition from the State of Maine, filed in *467Alaska under AS 25.25.010 — .270, the Alaska Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act. The Maine petition was timely served on defendant, Joseph R. Gary, a member of the United States Army, stationed at Fort Wainwright, Alaska. Gary failed to answer and the State, through the Attorney General’s Office, moved for a default judgment. The State requested that counsel be appointed for Gary pursuant to 50 App. U.S.C. § 520 (1983), a provision of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act, which requires appointment of counsel before a default can be entered against a member of the United States military.

Judge Jay Hodges appointed a local attorney to represent Gary. He further ordered “that attorney’s fee shall be paid by the Attorney General’s Office as billed or as determined by the court as reasonable.” The State petitioned for review of the order to pay attorney fees.

While payment of some fee to appointed counsel is appropriate, we know of no authority permitting the court to mandate that such fee be paid by the Attorney General. Former Administrative Rule 13,1 in effect at the time of this action, provided for compensation of attorneys appointed by the court. Attorneys appointed to represent persons under the Rules of Children’s Procedure, *pursuant to statute,*or where the appointment was constitutionally mandated were entitled to compensation at $40 per hour to a maximum of $1500. Administrative Rule 13(a). Claims for compensation were to be submitted to the assigned judge subject to the approval of the administrative director of the courts. Administrative Rule 13(c). The administrative director of the courts is responsible for all requests requiring payment of funds appropriated to the judiciary. Administrative Rule l(j).

The need for court appointed counsel in many cases has been sharply curtailed by the creation of the Office of Public Advocacy. Proceedings under AS 25.25.010 — .270 are not, however, specifically among the classes of cases mentioned in the statute detailing the “powers and duties” of the Office of Public Advocacy. AS 44.21.410. Currently Administrative Rule 12(d)(2) mandates that indigent persons requiring counsel but not provided for under AS 44.-21.410 or AS 18.85.100, the public defender statute, shall be provided with counsel at the expense of the Alaska Court System. Administrative Rule 12(d)(2).

The order of the superior court is REVERSED and REMANDED.

1

. Rescinded by Supreme Court-Order 653, effective June 6, 1985.