alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31 CERTIFICATION AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Khurram R. Qureshi, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of Lingo Media Corporation (formerly Lingo Media 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.The companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15(d)-14(a)) for the company and have:  (a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, 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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the company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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting.  Date:   March 11, 2008  By: /s/  Khurram R. Qureshi _______________________  Khurram R. Qureshi Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
4.10


 


DESCRIPTION
OF REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES


REGISTERED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE


SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


 


Set
forth below is the description of each class of securities of Unique Logistics International, Inc. (the “Company”) outstanding
as of May 31, 2021. The following description summarizes the most important terms of these securities. This summary does not purport
to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by the provisions of our Articles of Incorporation, and our Bylaws, copies of which have
been previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and are incorporated by reference into the Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended May 31, 2021. You should refer to our Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and the applicable provisions of the Nevada
Revised Statutes for a complete description.


 


Common
stock, par value $0.001 per share (the “Common Stock”) is the only class of our securities currently registered under Section
12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). Our Common Stock is quoted on the OTC Pink under the symbol
“UNQL.”


 


Authorized
Common Stock


 


Our
authorized Common Stock consists of 800,000,000 shares.


 


Dividend
Rights


 


We
have not paid any cash dividends to our shareholders. The declaration of any future cash dividends is at the discretion of our board
of directors and depends upon our earnings, if any, our capital requirements and financial position, our general economic conditions,
and other pertinent conditions. It is our present intention not to pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future, but rather to reinvest
earnings, if any, in our business operations.


 


Voting
Rights


 


Each
stockholder is entitled to one vote for each share of common stock held by such shareholder. Our common stockholders are not entitled
to cumulative voting for purposes of electing members to our board of directors.


 


No
Preemptive or Similar Rights


 


Our
Common Stock is not entitled to preemptive rights, and is not subject to conversion, redemption or sinking fund provisions or rights.


 


Right
to Receive Liquidation Distributions


 


Holders
of common stock are entitled to dividends when, and if, declared by the Board of Directors out of funds legally available therefore;
and then, only after all preferential dividends have been paid on any outstanding Preferred Stock. The Company has not had any earnings
and it does not presently contemplate the payment of any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.


 


Transfer
Agent and Registrar


 


The
transfer agent and registrar for our Common Stock is Action Stock Transfer Corporation, with an address at 2469 E. Fort Union Blvd, Suite
214, Salt Lake City, UT 84121. Their phone number is (801) 274-1088.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a § 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND § 

DEVELOPMENT, § 

 § 

 Plaintiff, § 

 § 

 v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-533-ADA 

 § 

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., § 

LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA § 

INC. § 

 § 

 Defendants. § 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

 Defendants Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and Huawei Technologies USA Inc. 

(“Defendants”) hereby file this Notice of Appearance and informs the Court that the following 

attorney has entered this action as counsel for Defendant: 

 Jason W. Cook 

Texas Bar No. 24028537 

MCGUIREWOODS LLP 

2000 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1400 

Dallas, TX 75201 

Telephone: (214) 932-6400 

Facsimile: (214) 932-6499 

jcook@mcguirewoods.com 

 In connection with this Notice, Mr. Cook requests that his appearance for Defendants be 

reflected on the Court’s docket and that all future pleadings, Orders, and other papers be served on 

him. 

Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 13 Filed 08/10/20 Page 1 of 2
 2 

Dated: August 10, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Jason W. Cook 

Jason W. Cook 

Texas Bar No. 24028537 

Shaun W. Hassett 

Texas Bar No. 24074372 

MCGUIREWOODS LLP 

2000 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1400 

Dallas, TX 75201 

Telephone: (214) 932-6400 

Facsimile: (214) 932-6499 

jcook@mcguirewoods.com 

shasset@mcguirewoods.com 

Tyler T. VanHoutan 

Texas Bar No. 24033290 

MCGUIREWOODS LLP 

600 Travis St., Suite 7500 

Houston, TX 77002 

Telephone: (713) 571-9191 

Facsimile: (713) 571-9652 

tvanhoutan@mcguirewoods.com 

Counsel for Defendant Defendants Huawei 

Technologies Co., Ltd. and Huawei Technologies 

USA Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-5, I hereby certify 

that on August 10, 2020, all counsel of record who have appeared in this case are being served 

with a copy of the foregoing via the Court’s CM/ECF system 

 /s/ Jason W. Cook 

 Jason W. Cook 

Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 13 Filed 08/10/20 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.2



SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



I, Brad Bodenman, certify that:



1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of American Seafoods Group LLC;



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 annual
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 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 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.    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 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 controls over financial reporting.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  |                                                                  
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: March 30, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    BRAD
BODENMAN
|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | Brad Bodenman Chief Financial Officer American Seafoods Group LLC
#### Rosemary V. Anders, Plaintiff, *v.*Warren F. Anders, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

December 16, 1957.

*Brown & Hunter*for plaintiff.

*Charles H. Lane*for defendant.

Sidney A. Fine, J.

This motion for an order directing the carrying out of the terms of a settlement stipulation, entered into in open court, in the presence of the parties, is granted.

In *Potter*v. *Rossiter*(109 App. Div. 737, 740) the Appellate Division, in this department, said: ‘ Where the existence or validity of a stipulation is dependent upon voluminous evidence, an action for its enforcement may be the proper remedy; but the court always has the power to enforce in a summary way, by motion, the observance of an undisputed and proper stipulation entered into by the parties to an action. *(Mutual Life Ins. Co.*v. *O’Donnell,*146 N. Y. 275; *Valentine*v. *Central National Bank,*10 Abb. N. C. 190; *Kelsey*v. *Sargent,*2 N. Y. St. Repr. 669.) ”

In *Randall & Sons*v. *Garfield Worsted Mills*(178 App. Div. 196, 199) the court said: “ The agreement entered into in open *2court with the consent and approval of the presiding justice, is binding upon the parties and concluded the court, whose duty it was, as between the parties, to enforce and effectuate it.” (Citing cases.)

The claim that the Statute of Frauds bars the court from directing performance of the agreement arrived at in open court, in the presence of the court, the parties, and counsel, is overruled. The purpose of the Statute of Frauds is to prevent frauds, not to perpetrate them. No case has been called to the court’s attention, or found, where the statute was held applicable to an agreement made, as here, in open court and read into the record, in the presence of the court, the parties and counsel. Rule 4 of the Rules of Civil Practice, which has the force and effect of law, provides that “An agreement between parties or their attorneys relating to any matter in an action or a proceeding shall not be binding unless in writing subscribed by the party, or by his attorney or counsel, or reduced by consent to the form of an order and entered ’ ’ but it goes on to declare that this provision “ *shall not apply to oral stipulations between counsel made in open court.”*(Italics supplied.) The italicized language indicates clearly the intent of the rule that oral stipulations made in open court should require no writings or memoranda, subscribed by a party or his attorney to be valid. In Browne on the Statute of Frauds (5th ed., 1895), the statement is made (§ 138) that the summary jurisdiction of courts over their own officers has been held to afford a remedy upon a verbal contract where the Statute of Frauds would prohibit an action upon it. It is there pointed out, as an example, that an attorney’s undertaking to pay his client’s debt has been enforced on motion in the court of which he is an attorney. The decisions referred to in Browne on the Statute of Frauds *(supra)*were arrived at even in the absence of a statute such as rule 4 *(supra).*In view of the provisions of rule 4, the inapplicability of the Statute of Frauds to the case at bar is even clearer.

Settle order.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7274
CURTIS E. CRAWFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus REBECCA BEACH SMITH, U. S. Judge, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-663-2) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 4, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis E. Crawford, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Curtis E. Crawford, a Virginia inmate, appeals the districtcourt's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. Sept. 1996, Pamphlet 3) and declining to reconsider that dismissal. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Crawford v. Smith , No. CA-96-663-2 (E.D. Va.July 23 & Aug. 15, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for the appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. Appellant's motion for a stay is denied.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8004

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ISAAC LEE WOODS; REGINA BAILEY WOODS,

Defendants - Appellants.

No. 10-6039

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ISAAC LEE WOODS; REGINA BAILEY WOODS,

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, 

Chief District Judge. (5:05-cr-00131-FL-1)

Submitted: April 8, 2010 Decided: May 7, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isaac Lee Woods, Regina Bailey Woods, Appellants Pro Se. S. 

Katherine Burnette, Edward D. Gray, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Clay Campbell Wheeler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Isaac Lee Woods and 

Regina Bailey Woods challenge two district court orders 

disposing of several of their post-judgment motions and their 

objections to the United States’ attempt to collect on the 

judgment of restitution. We affirm. 

We find no error in the United States’ decision not to 

commence a separate civil action in order to enforce the 

judgment of restitution. We further note there was no clear 

error by the district court finding that there was nothing to 

suggest an improper criminal investigation by the United States

instead of a legitimate attempt to collect on the judgment of 

restitution.

We have reviewed the record and affirm on the 

reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Woods, 

No. 5:05-cr-00131-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 23, 2009; Dec. 28, 2009). 

We also deny the Woods’ motion for a copy of a transcript of the 

October 8, 2009 hearing prepared at the Government’s expense and 

their motion to expedite. 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
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 200 (Monday, October 16, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26504]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-6885-4]


Utah: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management 
Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to grant Final authorization to the hazardous 
waste program changes submitted by Utah. In the ``Rules'' section of 
this Federal Register, we are authorizing the State's program changes 
as an immediate final rule without a prior proposed rule because we 
believe this action is not controversial. Unless we get written 
comments opposing this authorization during the comment period, the 
immediate final rule will become effective and the Agency will not take 
further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that oppose 
this action, we will publish a document in the Federal Register 
withdrawing this rule before it takes effect. EPA will address public 
comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. EPA may not 
provide further opportunity for comment. Any parties interested in 
commenting on this action must do so at this time.

DATES: We must receive your comments by November 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Kris Shurr, 8P-HW, U.S. EPA, Region 
VIII, 999 18th St, Ste 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, phone number: 
(303) 312-6139. You can view and copy Utah's application at the 
following addresses: Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), 
from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, 288 North 1460 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 
84114-4880, contact: Susan Toronto, phone number: (801) 538-6776. and 
EPA Region VIII, from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, contact: Kris Shurr, phone number: (303) 
312-6139.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kris Shurr, EPA Region VIII, 999 18th 
Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, phone number: (303) 
312-6139.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the 
immediate final rule published in the ``Rules'' section of this Federal 
Register.

    Dated: October 5, 2000.
William P. Yellowtail,
Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
[FR Doc. 00-26504 Filed 10-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Exhibit 10.9


 


 


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 01


TO


AGREEMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT NO. 01
(the “Amendment”), dated effective June 28, 2021 (the “Amendment No. 1 Effective Date”), by and
among Master Goblin Games LLC (“Master Goblin”) and AutoLotto, Inc. dba Lottery.com (“Company”),
amends that certain Partnership Agreement by and between Master Goblin and Company (the “Agreement”).


 


RECITALS:


 


	A.	Master Goblin and Company entered into the Agreement regarding
Master Goblin’s provision of certain services to Company; and



 


	B.	Master Goblin and Company wish to modify the Agreement as
set forth in this Amendment.



 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration
of the promises set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are acknowledged, the parties
agree as follows:


 


	1.	Definitions. Except as otherwise indicated, capitalized
terms in used in this Amendment not otherwise defined shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.



 


	2.	Name. The name of the Agreement shall be and hereby
is amended and restated as the “Services Agreement” and all references to “Partnership Agreement” set forth in
the Agreement shall be and hereby are replaced with reference to Services Agreement as though originally set forth therein.



 


	3.	Amendment. Except as specifically amended hereby,
the Agreement remains in full force and effect in accordance with the terms thereof. In the event of a conflict between the terms of
this Amendment and the Agreement, this Amendment shall control.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed by their respective duly authorized representatives as of the Amendment No. 01 Effective
Date.


 


	Master Goblin Games, LLC	 	AutoLotto, Inc.
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Ryan Dickinson	 	By: 	/s/ Anthony DiMatteo
	Name:	Ryan Dickinson	 	Name:	Anthony DiMatteo
	Its:	Manager	 	Its: 	Chief Executive Officer



 


 


 


1 | Confidential | Proprietary | ©AutoLotto2021
#### Toledo ROGERS, Movant, v. Charles SUATBA, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 16, 1953.

Shumate & Shumate, Irvine, for movant.

Buford Short, E. B. Rose, Beattyville, for opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Lee Circuit Court. Judgment for $273.30 for damages arising from an automobile accident.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.