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



Exhibit 31.4
  RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
    CERTIFICATION
    OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY
    (required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
    Form 10-K
      Rules 13a-15(e) 15d-15(e))
  a)
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
    disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
    supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
    registrant, 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; and c)
    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    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: March 1,
    2007
Non-competition. In addition to the obligations specified
in the Proprietary Agreement, you agree that during your employment with BLINK you will not engage in, or have any direct or indirect
interest in, any person, firm, corporation, or business (whether as an employee, officer, director, agent, security holder, creditor,
consultant, partner or otherwise) that is competitive with the business of BLINK, including, without limitation, planning, developing,
installing, marketing, selling, leasing, and providing services relating to electric vehicle charging stations.


 


Background Check. You represent that all information provided
to BLINK or its agents with regard to your background is true and correct.


 


We look forward to you joining BLINK. Please indicate
your acceptance of this offer by signing below and returning an executed copy of this offer to me at your earliest convenience.


 


Sincerely,


 


Mike Calise,


 


Chief Executive Officer


 


I accept this offer of employment with Blink Charging, Co. and agree to the terms and conditions outlined in this letter.


 


 





	 	 	June , 2018       6/17/2018 8:14:50 PM EDT	 
	Jonathan New	 	Date	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 		 
	 	 	Employment Start Date	 



 


3
#### State v. Froerer

18533

04/29/96

Affirmed
BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K

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 Annual Report of Briggs &
Stratton Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 28, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Brenn, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, 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/    James E. Brenn  
|James E. Brenn         
|Chief Financial Officer
|August 27, 2009        

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
27871

#### State v. Pixley

Affirmed
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD BRUCE ELLIS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CITY OF PORTLAND; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-35587

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-02330-PK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2015** 

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Ronald Bruce Ellis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising

out of his arrest and subsequent conviction and imprisonment. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d

FILED

APR 15 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Barren v.

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We reverse and remand.

We are unable to determine from the complaint that Ellis filed whether some

of his claims might be cognizable under § 1983. Ellis should be given the

opportunity on remand to clarify his constitutional claims and explain what facts

support them. If clarified, the district court may still determine that RookerFeldman is properly invoked as to some of Ellis’ allegations. 

The district court erred in dismissing Ellis’ entire action for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Ellis’ action

complained of illegal acts and omissions by defendants, at least some of which do

not allege an error by the state court and therefore do not constitute a de facto

appeal. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163-65 (explaining that Rooker-Feldman does not

bar jurisdiction over an action in which a federal plaintiff complains of a legal

injury caused by an adverse party); see also Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d

1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Rooker-Feldman . . . applies only when the federal

plaintiff both asserts as . . . [his] injury legal error or errors by the state court and

seeks as . . . [his] remedy relief from the state court judgment.”). 

REVERSED and REMANDED. 

2 13-35587
#### Moke v. Hawaiian Homes Com’n

24205

02/10/2003

Affirmed
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-13-00632-CR

ISRAEL CASTILLO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 8 of Harris County. 

(Tr. Ct. No. 1863072).

The cause heard today by the Court is an appeal from the judgment signed by the 

court below on July 2, 2013. After inspecting the record of the court below, it is the 

opinion of this Court that the record reveals error in the trial court’s judgment. 

Accordingly, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and remands the case to the 

trial court for further proceedings.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered April 16, 2015.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd. Opinion delivered 

by Chief Justice Radack.
#### State v. Van Alderwerelt

26161

08/29/2005

Denied

108 Hawai'i 401, 120 P.3d 1136
19050

#### State v. Jim

Affirmed
**CILCORP
      INC.**
      **Computation
      Of Ratio Of Earnings To Fixed Charges**
      **(Thousands
      of Dollars, Except Ratios)****Year
      Ended December 31,**
    
    **1/01/03**
      **Thru**
    
    **1/31/03**
      **Thru**
    
    **Year
      Ended December 31,****2000**
    
    **2001**
    
    **2002**
    
    **1/30/03****(1)**
    
    **12/31/03****(1)**
    
    **2004**Net
      income from continuing operations
    
    $
    11,385
    
    $
    25,428
    
    $
    24,658
    
    $
    5,385
    
    $
    14,400
    
    $
    10,367Income
      taxes
    
    
    10,380
    
    
    22,182
    
    
    6,841
    
    
    2,922
    
    
    5,946
    
    
    (8,526
    )Fixed
      charges
    
    
    82,590
    
    
    79,268
    
    
    76,605
    
    
    5,573
    
    
    54,219
    
    
    55,562Less:Preference
      security dividend requirements
      of
      consolidated subsidiaries
    
    
    (4,935
    )
    
    (3,579
    )
    
    (3,579
    )
    
    (283
    )
    
    (3,061
    )
    
    (2,408
    )Total
      earnings
    
    $
    99,420
    
    $
    123,299
    
    $
    104,525
    
    $
    13,597
    
    $
    71,504
    
    $
    54,995Fixed
      Charges:Interest
      expense
    
    
    76,052
    
    
    74,710
    
    
    71,407
    
    
    5,203
    
    
    49,760
    
    
    52,759Estimated
      interest cost within rental expense
    
    
    1,603
    
    
    979
    
    
    1,619
    
    
    87
    
    
    1,398
    
    
    395Earnings
      required for preferred dividends:Preference
      dividends of consolidated
      subsidiaries
    
    
    4,935
    
    
    3,579
    
    
    3,579
    
    
    180
    
    
    1,947
    
    
    2,062Adjustment
      to pre-tax basis
    
    
    -
    
    
    -
    
    
    -
    
    
    103
    
    
    1,114
    
    
    3464,935
    
    
    3,579
    
    
    3,579
    
    
    283
    
    
    3,061
    
    
    2,408Total
      fixed charges
    
    $
    82,590
    
    $
    79,268
    
    $
    76,605
    
    $
    5,573
    
    $
    54,219
    
    $
    55,562Ratio
      of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    1.20
    
    
    1.55
    
    
    1.36
    
    
    2.43
    
    
    1.31
    
    
    -(1)Ameren Corporation purchased CILCORP Inc. and subsidiaries on January 31,
      2003.(2)Earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges by $567 thousand for the
      year ended Decmber 31, 2004.
# EUR-Lex - 22004D0019 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 22004D0019

**Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 19/2004 of 19 March 2004 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) and Annex IV (Energy) to the EEA Agreement **

*
Official Journal L 127 , 29/04/2004 P. 0122 - 0123 *

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee

No 19/2004

of 19 March 2004

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) and Annex IV (Energy) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement", and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Annex II to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 141/2003 of 7 November 2003(1).

(2) Annex IV to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 141/2003 of 7 November 2003(2).

(3) Commission Directive 2003/66/EC of 3 July 2003 amending Directive 94/2/EC implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household electric refrigerators, freezers and their combinations(3), is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

1. Annex II to the Agreement shall be amended as follows:

(a) The following shall be added in point 4a (Commission Directive 94/2/EC) of Chapter IV before the adaptation text:

", as amended by:

- 32003 L 0066: Commission Directive 2003/66/EC of 3 July 2003 (OJ L 170, 9.7.2003, p. 10)."

(b) The text of adaptation (b) in point 4a (Commission Directive 94/2/EC) of Chapter IV shall be deleted.

2. Annex IV to the Agreement shall be amended as follows:

(a) The following shall be added in point 11a (Commission Directive 94/2/EC) before the adaptation text:

", as amended by:

- 32003 L 0066: Commission Directive 2003/66/EC of 3 July 2003 (OJ L 170, 9.7.2003, p. 10)."

(b) The text of adaptation (b) in point 11a (Commission Directive 94/2/EC) shall be deleted.

Article 2

The texts of Directive 2003/66/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 20 March 2004, provided that all the notifications pursuant to Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee(4).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 19 March 2004.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

P. Westerlund

(1) OJ L 41, 12.2.2004, p. 11.

(2) OJ L 41, 12.2.2004, p. 11.

(3) OJ L 170, 9.7.2003, p. 10.

(4) No constitutional requirements indicated.
#### YALE-NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL, INC. *v.*SUSAN SANDERS ET AL.

(AC 19999)

Foti, Hennessy and Pellegrino, Js.

Submitted on briefs June 14

officially released July 11, 2000

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
August 9, 2007

27775

#### State v. Tsui

Affirmed
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13


                     FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT


         THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT is made and entered into
this _____ day of April, 2000, by and between M.G.A., INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION (the "Company"), and J. T. MALUGEN (the "Employee").

                                   WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, the Company and Employee entered into that certain Employment
Contract, dated June 9, 1994 (the "Agreement"), providing for the employment of
Employee as Chief Executive Officer of the Company; and

         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has approved an
amendment to the Agreement to increase the base annual salary payable to
Employee under the Agreement;

         NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the parties hereby
agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

         1. Paragraph 4.1 of ARTICLE IV of the Agreement is hereby removed and
deleted in its entirety, and a new Paragraph 4.1 of ARTICLE IV is hereby added
in its place and stead as follows:

                  "4.1 For the services to be rendered by Employee in his
         capacity hereunder, or any other duty assigned to him by the Board of
         Directors of the Company, the Company agrees to pay Employee a base
         annual salary of Four Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($400,000.00)
         per year, subject to such increases as the Board of Directors (or the
         Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors) in its sole
         discretion deems appropriate in accordance with the Company's customary
         procedures regarding the salaries of its executive officers. Said base
         annual salary shall be payable in successive biweekly payments due on
         the normal payroll payment days of each month in equal amounts."

         2. This amendment shall be effective as of April 3, 2000.

         3. In all other respects, the Agreement is hereby ratified and
affirmed.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First
Amendment to Employment Contract on the day and year first above written.


ATTEST:                                              M.G.A., INC.


/s/ LEAH C. BROOK                                    BY:  /s/ S. PAGE TODD
----------------------------                              ----------------------
Assistant Secretary                                       Senior Vice President
----------------------------                              ----------------------
/s/ MARTHA F. COMPTON                                     /s/ J. T. MALUGEN
----------------------------                         ---------------------------
WITNESS                                              J. T. MALUGEN
#### STATE of Oklahoma ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Lewis Franklin GRAYSON, Respondent.

SCBD No. 2339.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Feb. 8, 1977.

As Corrected Feb. 18, 1977.

Paul Vassar, Oklahoma City, for complainant.

Stephen Jones, Enid, for respondent.

BERRY, Justice.

The Oklahoma Bar Association has filed motion requesting this Court enter its order disbarring respondent from the practice of law in the State of Oklahoma.

The record shows that on December 7, 1972, respondent was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude in cause No. 23939-1 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Therein respondent and others were convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 371 of conspiring to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1952.

The essence of the alleged conspiracy was that respondent conspired with others to promote and establish an unlawful business enterprise involving gambling, prostitution, and bribery in violation of the laws of the State of Oklahoma, by traveling and causing travel in interstate commerce, and by using, and causing use of facilities in interstate commerce, including wire communications facilities.

Thereafter, pursuant to Article X § 4(c) Rules of Oklahoma Bar Association, respondent was ordered to appear before this Court and show cause why he should not be disciplined.

*567Respondent appeared before this Court on May 15, 1975, and presented evidence that the conviction was then pending on appeal.

This Court then entered an order suspending respondent from practice of law in the State of Oklahoma, pursuant to Article X § IV.

Respondent has informed the Bar Association that his conviction is final and the Bar Association filed a motion requesting this Court enter its order disbarring respondent from practice of law in the State of Oklahoma.

The disposition of respondent’s appeal is reported at *United States v. Bishop,*8th Cir., 492 F.2d 1361, cert. den., 417 U.S. 942, 94 S.Ct. 3066, 41 L.Ed.2d 663.

Respondent has offered no evidence in mitigation of discipline, and has raised no issue as to conviction involving a crime of “moral turpitude.” It is the order of this Court that respondent, Lewis Franklin Grayson, be disbarred effective from May 15, 1975.

All Justices concur.
98 P.3d 246

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

September 29, 2004

24928

#### State v. Gauntt-Bryant

Reversed
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply11783Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Janice Kaufmann (not verified)PermalinkJanuary 10, 2024 - 8:25amThank u for sharing, my son told me about you & you are an inspiration to not only me but all you touch..Thank u Dennis
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,283
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,786
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,165
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,841
<PP&E>                                          91,586
<DEPRECIATION>                                  49,635
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 128,229
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          454,141
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      (11,111)
<OTHER-SE>                                     337,023
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 (128,229)
<SALES>                                      (253,869)
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             (253,869)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  357,189
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,676
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (127,872)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (127,872)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
Order filed April 21, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00204-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF K.M.M AND M.W.M., Children

On Appeal from the 247th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2006-45711

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed March 8, 2015. To date, the filing 

fee of $195.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant, Matthew W. 

Mahoney, has established indigence has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. 

Therefore, the court issues the following order. 

Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $195.00 to the 

clerk of this court on or before May 6, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant 

fails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be 

dismissed.

PER CURIAM