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



POLYPORE, INC.
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polypore, 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)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedure, 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; andc)
    
    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
function):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and the 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;
andb)
    
    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: November 15, 2005
    
    /s/ Lynn AmosLynn Amos
Chief Financial Officer
Augus t 2 , 201 1 

# VENTUR A

Th e Honorabl e F^a

yLaHoo d Secretar y Unite d State s Departmen t o f Transportatio n 120 0 New Jerse yAve . S E Washingto n D.C , Dea rSecretar

yLaHood : i:- a m-H m

c Thi s lette ri s sen t t o you t o indicat e m ysuppor t of th e applicatio n o f Ventur a County/Oxnard Airpor t fo ra gran t i n th e 201 1 Smal l CommunityAi rServic e Developmen t Program . Th e gran t i s requeste d t o provid e a n incentiv e fo rne w ai rsen/ic e fro m Oxnar d Airport t o La s Vegas , N V wit h SeaPor

t Airlines . Th e Oxnard Airport ha s ha d continuou s passenge rai rservic e sinc e 194 6 and , unfortunately , Unite d Expres s terminate d it s schedule d ai rservic e o n Jun e 8" ^ of 201 0 leavin g Oxnard Airpor t wit h n o ai rservice . Th e los s of ai rservic e ha s a significan t impact o n ou rbusiness . Ou ronl y optio n i s t o no w driv e t o eithe rBurban k Airpor t o rLo s Angele s Internationa l Airport . Th e driv e o n th e freeway s fro m Ventur a Countyi s lon g an d ver ycongested . I t ca n easil ytak e ove rtw o hour s t o ge t t o eithe rairport . I understan d th^ t Ventur a CountyDepartmen t o f Airport s managemen t ha s ha d meeting s wit h SeaPor t Airline s abou t providin g nonsto p servic e t o La s Vegas . W e ar e i n suppor t of thi s typ e o f ai rservic e an d believ e i t wil l b e a n importan t lin k t o connection s t o othe rareas . W e believ e that i f SeaPor

t jAirline s i s successfu l a t Oxnar d Airport , the ywil l ad d mor e flight s t o othe r market s an d othe rairtine s wil l com e t o ou rairpor t wit h nonsto p sen/ic e t o othe rregiona l hu b airports . Ou rcommunityneed s ai rservic e a t Oxnard Airpor t an d thi s wil l b e a goo d start . I strongl y suppor t th e applicatio n otVentur a County/Oxnard Airpor t fo ra gran t unde rthi s progra m an d wil l suppor t th e ne w ai rservice . Sincerely , / / / Jeffr^y^^bert , AlC P Corr^CRunit

y Developmen t Directo r 5Q I Pol l Stree t •j R O . Bo x9 9 • Veniura , CalJibcma 9300 2 009 9 805.654.780 0 • cilyorvenlura.ne t
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 19 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.19
                                        Agreed to April 10, 2019        

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR SOAP BOX DERBY RACES.

    (a) In General.--The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association 
(in this resolution referred to as the ``sponsor'') shall be permitted 
to sponsor a public event, soap box derby races (in this resolution 
referred to as the ``event''), on the Capitol Grounds.
    (b) Date of Event.--The event shall be held on June 15, 2019, or on 
such other date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate jointly designate.

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

    (a) In General.--Under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect 
of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board, the event shall be--
        (1) free of admission charge and open to the public; and
        (2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress.
    (b) Expenses and Liabilities.--The sponsor shall assume full 
responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident to all 
activities associated with the event.

SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

    Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the 
sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds such stage, 
sound amplification devices, and other related structures and equipment 
as may be required for the event.

SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

    The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board are 
authorized to make such additional arrangements as may be required to 
carry out the event.

SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 
Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on 
the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the 
Capitol Grounds, with respect to the event.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6025

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY MCQUEEN, a/k/a Champ, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-26-BR, CA-98-201-7-BR) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 15, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony McQueen, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Anthony McQueen seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000)and his motion for enlargement of time to file a motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. McQueen , Nos. CR-95-26-BR; CA-98-201-7-BR (E.D.N.C. Nov. 8, 2000; Nov. 30, 2000). 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.

DISMISSED
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

TO THE 227TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on February 4, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

Jesse Reyes Pena, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04-14-00873-CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2014CR9378W

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on April 6, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
# C_2004094EN.01002701.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/27

---

Action brought on 23 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

(Case C-90/04)

(2004/C 94/58)

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer and Gregorio Valero Jordana, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing hitherto to supply to the Commission the report required by 30 June 2002 under Article 7(1) of Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and amending Directive 93/12/EEC (1), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of that Directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing hitherto to supply to the Commission the report required by 30 June 2002 under Article 7(1) of Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating to a reduction in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and amending Directive 93/12/EEC (1), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of that Directive.

1

| 2. | order the Republic of Austria to bear the costs of the action. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Republic of Austria to bear the costs of the action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 7(1) of Directive 1999/32/EC the Member States are to supply to the Commission by 30 June of each year, on the basis of the results of the sampling and analysis carried out in accordance with Article 6, a short report on the sulphur content of the liquid fuels falling within the scope of the Directive and used within their territory during the preceding calendar year.

The Republic of Austria was accordingly to have supplied the first report for 2001 by 30 June 2002. The Republic of Austria had not complied with this requirement by the time the present action was brought and so has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Directive 1999/32/EC.

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 121, p. 13.

1

---
Exhibit 10.1


 


SEVEN HILLS REALTY TRUST


 


Summary of Trustee Compensation


 


The following is a summary of the currently effective compensation
of the Trustees of Seven Hills Realty Trust (the “Company”) for services as Trustees, which is subject to modification at
any time by the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) or the Compensation Committee of the Board, as applicable:


 


		·	Each Independent Trustee receives an annual fee of $60,000 for
services as a Trustee. The annual fee for any new Independent Trustee is prorated for the initial year.



 


		·	Each Independent Trustee who serves as a committee chair of
the Board’s Audit Committee, Compensation Committee or Nominating and Governance Committee receives an additional annual fee of
$17,500, $12,500, and $12,500, respectively. The committee chair fee for any new committee chair is prorated for the initial year.



 


		·	The Lead Independent Trustee receives an additional annual cash
retainer fee of $15,000 for serving in this role.



 


		·	Each Trustee receives a grant of 6,000 of the Company’s
common shares of beneficial interest on the date of the first Board meeting following each annual meeting of shareholders (or, for Trustees
who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of the first Board meeting attended).



 


		·	The Company generally reimburses all Trustees for travel expenses
incurred in connection with their duties as Trustees and for out of pocket costs incurred in connection with their attending certain
continuing education programs.
KEITH BURKS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1271

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 8, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Frank Sheffield, Judge.

Jeffrey E. Lewis, General Counsel, and Melissa J. Ford, Assistant Conflict 

Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel Region One, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Julian E. Markham and Jay Kubica, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Scott v. State, 629 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)

(holding as lawful the stop of a vehicle at a police perimeter set up in the 

immediate area of a crime scene from which armed suspects had fled).

ROBERTS, SWANSON, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit
4.1


 


ASSIGNMENT
AND NOVATION AGREEMENT


 


This
ASSIGNMENT AND NOVATION (this “Assignment and Novation”) is made as of June 9, 2022, by and between Globis
NV Merger 2 Corp., a Nevada corporation (the “Assignor”), and Forafric Global PLC, a Gibraltar public company limited
by shares (the “Assignee”). Capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed
to such terms in the Warrant Agreement (as defined below).


 


RECITALS


 


A.
The Assignor (as successor in interest to Globis Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation) and VStock Transfer, LLC are parties to that
certain Warrant Agreement, dated December 10, 2020 (the “Warrant Agreement”).


 


B.
The Warrant Agreement permits the assignment of the Warrant Agreement by the Assignor and the Assignor wishes to assign and transfer
to the Assignee all of its rights, interests, and obligations under the Warrant Agreement and all of the Assignor’s rights, interests,
and obligations under the warrants subject to the Warrant Agreement (“Transfer Warrants”).


 


AGREEMENT


 


The
parties hereto hereby agree as follows:


 


1.
Assignment. The Assignor hereby irrevocably assigns, transfers, and novates the Warrant Agreement and the Transfer Warrants (including
the Assignor’s obligations and liabilities with respect to the Transfer Warrants) unto the Assignee.


 


2.
Acceptance of Assignment. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, the Assignee hereby accepts the assignment of the
Warrant Agreement and agrees, covenants and undertakes to perform its obligations under the Warrant Agreement and the Transfer Warrants
and to be bound by and to adhere to the terms and provisions of the Warrant Agreement and Transfer Warrants as if the Assignee was a
party to the Transfer Warrants in lieu of the Assignor.


 


3.
Governing Law. THIS ASSIGNMENT AND NOVATION SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK WITHOUT REGARD TO PRINCIPLES OF CONFLICTS OR CHOICE OF LAWS.


 


4.
Counterparts. This Assignment and Novation may be executed in any number of counterparts, and each of such counterparts shall,
for all purposes, be deemed to be an original, and all such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument. Facsimile
signatures shall constitute original signatures for all purposes of this Assignment and Novation.


 


[Signature
page follows]


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have each caused this Assignment and Novation to be duly executed as of the date set forth above.


 


	ASSIGNOR:
    	GLOBIS NV MERGER 2 CORP.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Paul Packer
	 	Name: 	Paul
    Packer
	 	Title:	President
	 	 	 
	ASSIGNEE:
    	FORAFRIC GLOBAL PLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Paul Packer
	 	Name:	Paul
    Packer
	 	Title:	President


 


[Signature
Page to Warrant Assignment and Novation]
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 05, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, February 05, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19I0162. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. MARGO DELAUNE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2017CV288173
Exhibit32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing of theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September30,  2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the ‘‘Report’’) by MDwerks Inc. (the‘‘Registrant’’), I, Howard Katz, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certifythat:

|  |          |                                                                                                                                 |
|--|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | 1.  | The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended, and |

|  |          |                                                                                                                                                   |
|--|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | 2.  | The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial conditions and results of operations ofRegistrant. |

|  | /s/ HowardKatz                     |
|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Dated:November 14, 2006

----
### NUMBER 13

- 1 8

- 00 195

- CV


### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ RENAISSANCE EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, P.A. , A ppellant ,

v.
ANDY RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND FOR K .R. AND G. R

. AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF STEPHANIE REYES, DECEASED, RENE REYES AND LETICIA REYES , Appellee s
.

____________________________________________________________ On a ppeal from the 139 th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________ 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Contreras , Longoria , and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion by Justice HinojosaAppellant Renaissance Emergency Physicians, P.A., perfected an appeal from an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss the health care liability claim of appellee
Andy Rodriguez, individually and as next friend for K.R. and G.R. and as personal
representat ive of the estate of Stephanie Reyes, deceased, Rene Reyes and Leticia
Reyes. Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal and requests
that this Court dismiss the appeal.
The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant ’ s unopposed
motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Appellant ’ s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is
hereby DISMISSED

. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d)
("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant.").
Having di smissed the appeal at appellant’ s request, no motion for rehearing will be
entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

LETICIA HINOJOSA Justice

D elivered and filed the 19th day of July, 2018.
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 of Solo Cup Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the thirteen weeks ended March 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert M. Korzenski, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Robert M. Korzenski
|Robert M. Korzenski    
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 13, 2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**PEERLESS INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY,** 

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY**
**AND WYATT, INC.,**

**Respondents :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 240 WAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 22nd day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**