alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
   (1)
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Technical
Communications Corporation;(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 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer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 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 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; andb.
    
    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.
 /s/ Carl H. Guild, Jr.

Carl H. Guild, Jr.
President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: August 11, 2008
Order entered August 28, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 13 - 00397 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 00399 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 00406 - CR No. 05 - 13 - 00407 - CR OCTAVIOUS JAMES JACK SON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from t he 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F08 - 20340 - W , F08 - 20341 - W, F12 - 70580 - W, F12 - 70581 - W 

### O RDER The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant has been deprived of the reporter ’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeals. If the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeals, it shall make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeals, it shall next determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs for the reporter’s record. If ap pellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, whic h may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court findsappellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the

appeal.

 The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter wh o recorded the proceedings in these causes; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can be filed.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit supplemental recor ds, containing the written findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. The appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeals shall be reinst ated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental records are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
Exhibit 10.3 Agreement between Somebox and its president regarding potential
      deferred compensation


    Exhibit
      10.3

    


    AGREEMENT

    


    


    AGREEMENT
      dated this 22nd day of May 2005, by and between Somebox, Inc. (hereinafter
      “SOMEBOX”), a Delaware Corporation, with offices located at 54 Ludlow Street,
      4th
      Floor,
      New York, New York 10002 and Jeremy Seitz, President of SOMEBOX.

    


    WHEREAS,
      SOMEBOX
      has filed a Registration Statement with the United States Securities and
      Exchange Commission (hereinafter the “SEC”) on Form SB-2 and has filed an
      Exhibit 10.2 to such Registration Statement regarding methods of payment of
      offering expenses; and

    


    WHEREAS,
      such
      Registration Statement includes in the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis or
      Plan of Operation” section, a specific discussion of SOMEBOX’s cash requirements
      for the next twelve (12) months (exclusive of offering expenses) and its
      specific viable plans to meet such requirements.

    


    NOW,
      THEREFORE,
      it is
      herewith agreed as follows: 

    The
      undersigned, as President of SOMEBOX herewith agrees to defer SOMEBOX
      compensation otherwise payable to him so as to permit SOMEBOX to remain viable
      and further agrees to loan SOMEBOX amounts necessary to meet SOMEBOX’s expenses
      if sufficient revenues are not generated therefore to the extent that gross
      profits are insufficient to pay SOMEBOX’s costs and expenses. If and when
      loaned, the loan will be evidenced by a non-interest bearing unsecured corporate
      note to be treated as a loan until repaid, if and when SOMEBOX has the financial
      resources to do so.

    


    The
      parties hereto understand that the above constitutes a binding Agreement and
      that the contents thereof are referred to in the aforesaid Registration
      Statement in the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis or Plan of Operation”
section.


    
      
        
        

      

      
        1

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    


    The
      above
      constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties hereto.

     

         IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF,
      the
      parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the
      22nd day
      of
      May 2005.

    


    


    SOMEBOX,
      INC.

    


    


    /s/
      Jeremy Seitz

    By:
      ________________________________

    Jeremy
      Seitz, President

    


    /s/
      Jeremy Seitz

    By:
      _________________________________

    Jeremy
      Seitz , Individually

     

     

     

     2
Director's Compensation


    EXHIBIT
      10(u)

    


    


    AMERICAN
      ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, INC.

    


    SCHEDULE
      OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’ ANNUAL COMPENSATION

    


    Effective
      January 1, 2006

    


    


    
      	
              Retainer1

            	
                          Amount

            
	
               

            	
               

            
	
              Service
                as a Director

            	
                          $67,500

            
	
               

            	
               

            
	
              Service
                as Audit Committee Chair

            	
                          $15,000

            
	
               

            	
               

            
	
              Service
                as Audit Committee Member

            	
                          $12,000

            
	
               

            	
               

            
	
              Service
                as Presiding Director

            	
                          $15,000

            


    

    


    


    1 Retainer
      amounts are paid quarterly

    


    


    Each
      non-employee director also receives annually $82,500 in AEP stock units pursuant
      to the AEP Stock Unit Accumulation Plan. In addition, non-employee directors
      will be paid a fee of $1,200 per day for special assignments (such as attendance
      at Nuclear Regulatory Commission meetings).
#### Ex parte CHICK.

No. 24825.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 5, 1950.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

' PER CURIAM.

The petition filed herein by Robert A. Chick alleges that he is confined in the State'Penitentiary by reason of a conviction in the District Court of Denton County, Texas, dated March 31, 1949. It is further alleged that the judgment in said case provided for a term of not less than five nor more than twenty-five years; that this conviction was upon a plea of guilty before the court, after he had waived a jury.'

We find a number of papers filed in this case which are not understandable and they will not be discussed further than the one question set out in his original application. In connection with this application, a certified copy of the judgment of the District Court is attached, with a certificate of the clerk dated March 17, 1950. The judgment says: “It is therefore considered and adjudged by the Court that the defendant Robert A. Chick is guilty of the offense of Robbery, as confessed by him in his said plea of Guilty herein made, and that he be punished by confinement in the State Penitentiary for' a term of (25) Twenty-five years and that the State of Texas do have and recover of the said defendant Robert A. Chick all costs in this prosecution expended, fo'r which execution will issue.”

It is also noted by a certified copy of the sentence that the court applied the indeterminate sentence law. This was proper under the statute.

There being no grounds alleged as a basis for the relief sought, the writ is by the court denied.
log Fish BCF = 0.83 (E) log Fish BAF = 0.66 (E) POTW removal (%) = 90 via biodeg Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk Sorption to soils/sediments = low PBT Potential: P1B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl – slow due to biodeg

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is good all routes, based on analogs; expected to for disulfides in the body. There is concern for irritation and possible corrosion to all tissues, based on disulfide formation. There is also concern for mutagenicity based on various small thiols. There are also concerns for blood toxicity (accelerated clotting), liver and kidney toxicities and neurotoxicity based on analogs. Also concern for sensitization based on the p ossibility of disulfide bond formation.

Ecotox : Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 7.1 daphnid 48-h LC50 0.74 green algal 96-h EC50 0.50 fish

_ chronic value 0.86 daphnid

_ chronic value 0.083
algal

_ chronic value 0.20
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for thiols; SAR chemical class = thiol; MW 134; log Kow = 1.77 (EPI); liquid with unknown mp (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;
Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) Acute Concentration of Concern ( p pb) Chronic 8

SARs thiolsSAR Class thiol N ew Chemcial Category Thiols
Ecotox Factors Comments:
SAT Chair:
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Boardof Directors 

J. Crew Group, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (File No. File No. 333-126142, File No. 333-135390, File No. 333-139313 and File No. 333-151623,) onForms S-8 of J. Crew Group, Inc. of our reports dated March 19, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of J. Crew Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of January 30, 2010 and January 31, 2009, and the related consolidatedstatements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended January 30, 2010, and the related financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting as of January 30, 2010 which reports appear in the January 30, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of J. Crew Group, Inc. 

As discussed in Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements, Group changed its method of accounting for uncertainty in income taxes in the year ended February 2, 2008 due to the adoption of anaccounting standard. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

New York, New York 

March 19, 2010
#### MOREHOUSE v. STATE.

No. 24575.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 11, 1950.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 22, 1950.

R. L. Graves, Brownfield, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for aggravated assault, with $1,000 fine and two years in the county jail. ■

The transcript fails to show when the term of court began or when it ended and, therefore, we are unable to determine from the record if the case has been properly appealed to this court.

It further appears that the statement of facts was not filed in the court below. The same is in question and answer form and for this additional reason cannot be considered. We find no bills of exception in the record and nothing is presented for our consideration.

Because the transcript fails to show that this Court has jurisdiction, the appeal is, on the State’s motion, dismissed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, John W. Lockwood, Chief Financial Officer of Annuity and Life Re (Holdings), Ltd. (the
Company), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (1) the Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period
ended December 31, 2004 (the Form 10-K), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and (2) the information
contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. Date: March 31, 2005 /s/ John W. LockwoodName: John W. LockwoodTitle: Chief Financial Officer
 - 2 -
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 28, 2011 

y1219 

Order 

 

December 28, 2011 

143659 

CHRIS C. LAMBERT, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143659 

 COA: 297088 

Livingston CC: 09-024549-NI 

GREEN OAK TOWNSHIP POLICE 

DEPARTMENT and MICHAEL JAIN, 

Defendants, 

and 

THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF GREEN OAK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3060 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 232 Southwest Johnson Avenue in Burleson, 

Texas, as the ‘‘Sergeant William Moody Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3060 EH

1 SECTION 1. SERGEANT WILLIAM MOODY POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 232 Southwest Johnson Avenue 

5 in Burleson, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Sergeant William Moody Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sergeant William 

11 Moody Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 24, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3060 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postliam Moody Post Office Building’’. enue in Burleson, Texas, as the ‘‘Sergeant Wil- al Service located at 232 Southwest Johnson Av-
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-51280 Conference Calendar

SAMUEL G. NEWTON, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

SONIA BLACK NEWTON; FRANK GONZALES; JEFFREY DAVIDSON; JAMES PETERSON; RON CARR; BYRON LEFLORE, JR., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-00-CV-469

- - - - - - - - - - June 14, 2001 Before WIENER, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Samuel G. Newton, III, Texas prisoner #477341, appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Although couched in terms of civil rights violations, Newton’s action is an attempt to attack collaterally the validity of an adverse state-court judgment. Federal courts lack jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of state-court determinations. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 476, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity TrustNo. 00-51280 - 2 - Co. , 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923); Davis v. Bayless , 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir. 1995). Newton’s appeal is without merit and therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of the present case and this court’s dismissal of Newton’s appeal count as two strikes against him for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution Newton that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
#### JONES v. STATE.

No. 22180.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 17, 1942.

Rollie Fancher, of Seymour, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for the offense of possessing intoxicating liquor in a dry area for the purpose of sale. The punishment assessed is confinement in the county jail for a period of five days.

It appears from the record that on the afternoon of December 24, 1941, officers, armed with a search warrant, went to the home of appellant and searched the same for intoxicating liquor. As a result of the search they found four pints of wine and one and one-half pints of whisky. Appellant and his wife each testified that they had the wine and whisky for “Christmas cheer”; that they intended to have some eggnog on Christmas Day. Appellant’s wife further testified that the two pint bottles of wine belonged to her; that she kept the wine for her personal use.

The sheriff testified that previous to the search he told the defendant that if he did not quit selling whisky he was going to catch him. This testimony was timely objected to upon various grounds, and we will discuss the same later herein.

By Bill of Exception No. 1 appellant objected to the testimony of the officers as to what they found as a result of the search upon the ground that the search was illegal because the search warrant did not properly describe the premises which were searched. We need not determine this question because appellant admitted that he possessed the liquor. Of course, the admission in evidence of the search warrant was improper. However, that question passed out of the case when appellant testified.

By Bill of Exception No. 2 appellant objected- to the testimony given by the sheriff to the effect that he told appellant prior to the time of the search that he was going to catch him if he did not stop selling whisky. It appears to us that this was but an opinion or a conclusion of the sheriff based upon some rumor because if he had personal knowledge or credible in*209formation thereof, he, no doubt, would have made a complaint against appellant. That this testimony was harmful and prejudicial is obvious because the State had to rely upon the statutory rule of prima facie evidence as a circumstance from which an inference arose that appellant had the intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, but this presumption was vigorously combated by the testimony of the appellant and that of his wife; hence the testimony of the sheriff was thrown into the scale against appellant to bolster up the prima facie rule of evidence applicable by reason of the fact that he possessed more than one quart of intoxicating liquor. This was error. See Scott v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 484, 137 S.W.2d 39.

From what we have said it follows that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded, and it is so ordered.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals .and approved by the Court.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of-- ) 

) 

Technologists Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. W917PM-07-D-0016 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59011 

Ms. Badria Azimi 

Operations Director. 

and Corporate Officer 

Thomas H. Gourlay, Jr., Esq. 

Engineer Chief Trial Attorney 

James D. Stephens, Esq. 

Assistant District Counsel 

U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East 

Winchester, VA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. 

The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 8 April 2014 

~~# Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59011, Appeal of Technologists Inc., 

rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals