alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, R. Don Morris, certify that:  1.   I have reviewed this amended Annual Report (the Report) on Form 10-KSB of the small business issuer;  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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;  4.   The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and 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 small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this 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 Report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5.   The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.  Date:9/14/07By:/s/R. Don MorrisR. Don Morris    President and Director
# C_2004094EN.01002903.xml

| 17.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/29

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeidsrechtbank Gent by order of that Court of 17 February 2004 in the case of Roger Noteboom against Rijksdienst voor Pensionen

(Case C-101/04)

(2004/C 94/66)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Arbeidsrechtbank Gent (Ghent Labour Court) of 17 February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 26 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Roger Noteboom against Rijksdienst voor Pensionen on the following questions:

| 1. | Does holiday pay within the meaning of Article 22 of Royal Decree No 50 of 24 October 1967 and Article 56 of the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967 fall within the scope ratione materiae of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) and more specifically does it constitute an ‘old-age benefit’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(c) thereof? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does holiday pay within the meaning of Article 22 of Royal Decree No 50 of 24 October 1967 and Article 56 of the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967 fall within the scope ratione materiae of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) and more specifically does it constitute an ‘old-age benefit’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(c) thereof?

1

| 2. | Are Articles 45(1) and (6) of Regulation No 1408/71 to be interpreted as meaning that the RVP must, as the competent institution, take account of insurance periods completed in another Member State in determining entitlement to holiday pay? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are Articles 45(1) and (6) of Regulation No 1408/71 to be interpreted as meaning that the RVP must, as the competent institution, take account of insurance periods completed in another Member State in determining entitlement to holiday pay?

| 3. | If the second question is answered in the negative, does the requirement in Article 71(1)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71 that the benefit is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the legislation of the Member State in whose territory the frontier worker resides ‘as though he had been subject to that legislation while last employed’ apply only to unemployment benefit or also to other benefits such as, in particular, holiday pay as referred to in Article 22 of Royal Decree No 50 of 24 October 1967 and Article 56 of the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the second question is answered in the negative, does the requirement in Article 71(1)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71 that the benefit is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the legislation of the Member State in whose territory the frontier worker resides ‘as though he had been subject to that legislation while last employed’ apply only to unemployment benefit or also to other benefits such as, in particular, holiday pay as referred to in Article 22 of Royal Decree No 50 of 24 October 1967 and Article 56 of the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967?

---

(1)  English special edition: Series I Chapter 1971(II) P. 0416

1

---
Exhibit 2.4  State of Utah Department of Commerce Division of Securities  September 27, 2006   A.O. Headman, Jr. COHNE, RAPPAPORT, & SEGAL, PC 257 East 200 South, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111  Re:       Bullion Monarch Mining, Inc. ("the Issuer") Grant of Exemption from Registration Utah Code Ann. Section 16-1-14(2)(s) Entity File # 006-9536-78  Dear Mr. Headman:  Pursuant to the recommendation made by the hearing officer in the Issuer's September 27, 2007 Fairness Hearing, it is the order of the Division of Securities, Department of Commerce, State of Utah, that the securities described in the Issuer's application filed March 29, 2006, and any amendments and supplements thereto up to the hearing date, are exempt from state registration under section 61-1-14(2)(s) of the Utah Uniform Securities Act.  The exemption is effective for 12 months from the date of the Order.  Because this finding is based upon the representations made to the Division of Securities, it should be noted that any different facts or conditions of a material nature might require a different conclusion.  Please note that is order related only to the transaction or series of transactions encompassed within the Issuer's Fairness Hearing application filed March 29, 2006 and shall have no value for future similar offerings.  Please direct any inquiries regarding this letter to the Division's Corporate Finance Section at (801) 530-6134.  Very truly yours,   /s/Wayne Klein WAYNE KLEIN, DIRECTOR UTAH DIVISION OF SEUCRITIES  WK/bnj
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 21, 2018. 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, November 21, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19D0149. GEOFFERY S. ROBINSON et al v. SUNTRUST BANK. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 17CV1556
#### In re the MARRIAGE OF Billy H. JONES, Appellant, and Gertrude L. Jones, Appellee.

No. 79CA0265.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

Aug. 23, 1979.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 20, 1979.

Certiorari Granted Nov. 19, 1979.

*899Jerry L. Valentine, Denver, for appellant.

Joseph W. Opstelten, Lakewood, for ap-pellee.

RULAND, Judge.

In an action for dissolution of marriage, appellant, Billy H. Jones, appeals from that part of the trial court’s order awarding appellee, Gertrude L. Jones, maintenance in the amount of $400 per month. We dismiss the appeal.

The record reflects that the parties had accumulated marital assets valued at approximately $155,000. In its order, the trial court divided these assets between the parties, awarded wife the maintenance complained of, and directed husband to pay $1,000 toward attorney’s fees incurred by wife. Subsequent to entry of the order, the marital assets were distributed in compliance with the court’s order, and the husband accepted the benefits accruing to him as a result of that order.

One who accepts the legal advantages accruing to him under a judgment waives his right to any review of the adjudication which may again put in issue his right to the benefit which he has accepted. *Farmers Elevator Co. v. First National Bank,*181 Colo. 231, 508 P.2d 1261 (1973). And, because the issues pertaining to the division of property and maintenance must be considered together in determining whether the trial court has abused its discretion, *see Carlson*v. *Carlson,*178 Colo. 283, 497 P.2d 1006 (1972), any error in the resolution of either issue requires a remand for reconsideration of both. *See e. g., In re Marriage of Lodholm,*35 Colo.App. 411, 536 P.2d 842 (1975). Therefore, where, as here a husband accepts the benefits accruing to him pursuant to the trial court’s division of property, he is foreclosed from seeking appellate review of the award of maintenance contained in the same order.

Appeal dismissed.

PIERCE and BERMAN, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Alston, Decker and Retired Judge Coleman

FAIRFAX COUNTY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION

v. Record No. 1625-14-4 PER CURIAM 

 APRIL 14, 2015 

MATTHEW DOMYANCIC 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (David P. Bobzien, County Attorney; Peter D. Andreoli, Jr., Deputy 

County Attorney; Karen L. Gibbons, Senior Assistant County 

Attorney, Jamie M. Greenzweig, Assistant County Attorney, on 

briefs), for appellant. 

 (Jack T. Burgess; Burgess & Perigard, PLLC, on brief), for 

appellee. 

 Fairfax County (hereinafter “employer”) appeals a decision of the Workers’ 

Compensation Commission (hereinafter “the commission”) finding that the commission erred in 

denying employer’s application on August 23, 2013, asserting a change in condition in Matthew 

Domyancic (hereinafter “claimant”), and in denying employer’s application on November 25, 

2013, seeking a change in claimant’s treating physician.1

 Employer also asserts the commission 

erred in finding the employer did not prove claimant’s failure to report a return to work. Finally, 

 

 Judge Coleman took part in the consideration of this case prior to the effective date of 

this retirement on January 31, 2015. 

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

1

 Despite employer’s reference to the November 25, 2013 application in its assignment of 

error, it notes in its opening brief that it withdrew its request for a change in treating physicians. 

Accordingly, this issue is now moot. 

UNPUBLISHED 
 - 2- 

employer contends the commission erred in denying its request to terminate the outstanding 

award for temporary total benefits, effective January 1, 2012. 

 We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is 

without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final 

opinion.2

 See Domyancic v. Fairfax Cnty., JCN No. 2274883 (Aug. 7, 2014). We dispense with 

oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed. 

 2

 In asserting the commission erred in finding that employer did not prove claimant’s 

failure to report a return to work, employer asserts the commission cannot on the one hand give 

employer a credit for the funds received by claimant, and, on the other, conclude the funds did 

not constitute income. Because employer did not present this argument to the commission in a 

motion to reconsider, and raises it for the first time on appeal, it has waived this argument. See 

Williams v. Gloucester Sheriff’s Dep’t, 266 Va. 409, 411, 587 S.E.2d 546, 548 (2003).
April 9, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DAVID GLYNN NUNN, JR, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00704-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

The following notice of a scheduled meeting is published pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, 5 U.S.C. 552b. 

# AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission. 

# TIMES AND DATES:

The Commission has scheduled a meeting for the following date: April 18, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. 

# PLACE:

Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, Lobby Level Hearing Room (Room 1300). 

# STATUS:

Open. 

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                        The Commission has scheduled this meeting to consider various rulemaking matters, including the issuance of proposed rules and the approval of final rules. The Commission may also consider and vote on dates and times for future meetings. The agenda for this meeting will be made available to the public and posted on the Commission's Web site at                         *http://www.cftc.gov*                         at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting. In the event that the time or date of the meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site.                     

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

David A. Stawick, Secretary of the Commission, 202-418-5071. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2012-9166 Filed 4-12-12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
on: (a) Form S-8  (333-94995)  pertaining to the 1996 CSI Stock Option Plan, the
1999 Section 3(i) Share Option Plan,  the 1999 Employee  Stock Purchase Plan and
the 1999 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan of Commtouch Software Ltd.;(b)
Form F-3  (333-89773)  pertaining to the resale of 2,052,051  ordinary shares of
Commtouch  Software Ltd. by Vulcan Ventures  Incorporated,  InfoSpace  (formerly
"Go2Net,  Inc.")  and  Microsoft  Corporation  and  a  warrant  exercisable  for
1,136,000 ordinary shares of Commtouch Software Ltd. by InfoSpace;  and (c) Form
F-3 (333-46192)  pertaining to the sale by Commtouch  Software Ltd. of 4,000,000
of its ordinary shares; (d) Form S-8 (333-65532) pertaining to the 1999 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan, the 1999  Non-Employee  Directors Stock Option Plan and the
Wingra  Technologies,  LLC 1998 Unit Option Plan;  and (e) Form F-3  (333-68248)
pertaining to the resale of 1,406,612 ordinary shares of Commtouch Software Ltd.
by  investors in Wingra,  of our report dated  February 27, 2002 with respect to
the consolidated  financial  statements and schedule of Commtouch  Software Ltd.
included  in this  Annual  Report on Form 20-F for the year ended  December  31,
2001.

                                         Yours truly,


Tel-Aviv, Israel                         KOST, FORER and GABBAY
April 26, 2002                           A Member of Ernst & Young International
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of American Bar Association Members/State Street Collective Trust (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert E. Fullam, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



/s/ Robert E. FullamRobert E. Fullam Chief
Financial Officer November 16, 2009
Office of 

Community Food 

Systems

2017
HHFKA 2010

Section 243: Access to Local Foods

The Secretary shall create a Farm to School Program to:

1. Distribute grant funding to improve access to local foods in schools. 

2. Provide training and technical assistance to improve access to local 

foods in schools.

3. Disseminate research and data on existing programs and opportunities 

for expansion.
Local Food

Food Education
School settings




Benefits

• Willingness to try new foods.

• Increased consumption of fruits and vegetables (.99 

– 1.3 servings/daily)

• Improved knowledge and awareness regarding 

gardening, agriculture and healthy eating.

Local in Summer
Local in Preschool
Tribal Schools
Research
www.farmtoschoolcensus.fns.usda.gov 
• reduced food waste (18%)

• lower school meal program costs (21%)

• greater acceptance of the new meal pattern (28%)

• increased participation (17%)

• greater community support (39%)

76% of respondents (3,002 out of 3,954 districts) 

experienced at least one of the following benefits:

2015 Farm to School Census tell us...
Growth of Farm to School

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Number of

farm to

school

programs

Source: USDA.

2 4 400

1,000

2,051

4,322

5,254
Grants
Farm to School Grant 

Awards To Date

FY 2013 - FY 2016

• 300 projects

• 50 states, DC, Virgin Islands

• $20.2 M

• Requests from 1,300+ 

projects seeking ~$98 M



Technical 

Assistance

Assess state programs
The Team
National Staff

Erin Healy

Director

Mieka Sanderson

Grant Program

Christina Conell

Senior Technical Advisor

Erin Hysom

Training + Technical 

Assistance (NSLP, SFSP)

Janell Walker

Communications, Technical 

Assistance (CACFP)
Regional Leads

Andrea Northup, 

MPRO

JuliAnna Arnett, 

WRO 

Rachel Spencer, 

SWRO

Samantha Benjamin-Kirk, SERO

Tegan Hagy, MARO 

Danielle Fleury, NERO

Jenna Segal, 

MWRO

Tribal

Gardens
Get Involved

-Subscribe to our enewsletter (more than 

25,000 subscribers!)

-Help us connect 

producers with schools 

-Promote our RFA 

among producers 

Subscribe at www.usda.gov/farmtoschool
Order entered November 25, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00175-CV

BERNARD PATRUSKY, Appellant

V.

KENNETH BLOOMBERG AND MARILYN BLOOMBERG, Appellees

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-14821

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s November 24, 2014 unopposed motion for extension of time to 

file reply brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than December 15, 2014.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,290
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  103,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,657
<INVENTORY>                                     88,391
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               211,312
<PP&E>                                         146,786
<DEPRECIATION>                                  93,293
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 317,778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           99,470
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,434
<OTHER-SE>                                     116,221
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   317,778
<SALES>                                        339,030
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               339,030
<CGS>                                          223,999
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   94,522
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (949)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,164
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,294
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,365
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,929
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,929
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .89
        

</TABLE>