alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1



US Oncology, Inc.



CERTIFICATION



I, R. Dale Ross, Chief Executive Officer of US Oncology, Inc., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of US Oncology, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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) [intentionally omitted];



c) 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



d) disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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.



Date:  August 13, 2003



|/s/ R. Dale Ross                            
|--------------------------------------------
|R. Dale Ross                                
|Chief Executive Officer of US Oncology, Inc.
Case 3:22-cr-00368-S Document 1 Filed 09/27/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1
Case 3:22-cr-00368-S Document 1 Filed 09/27/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID 2
Case 3:22-cr-00368-S Document 1 Filed 09/27/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID 3
Case 3:22-cr-00368-S Document 1 Filed 09/27/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID 4
Case 3:22-cr-00368-S Document 1 Filed 09/27/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID 5
Case 3:22-cr-00368-S Document 1 Filed 09/27/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID 6
Case 3:22-cr-00368-S Document 1 Filed 09/27/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID 7
Case 3:22-cr-00368-S Document 1 Filed 09/27/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID 8
#### HESTAND KIMBELL GROCERY CO. v. FORREST et al.

No. 4083.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

April 24, 1941.

Thomas & Thomas, of Big Spring, for appellant.

Klapproth & Hamilton, of Midland, for appellees.

PRICE, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from the County Court of Martin County. Hestand Kimbell Grocery Company, as plaintiff, sued F. A. Forrest and Horace Blocker, as defendants, seeking to recover the sum of $329.74 for the price of goods, wares and merchandise alleged to have been sold and delivered to defendants.

Plaintiff alleged that defendants were partners at the time the goods, wares and merchandise in question were delivered, doing business under the firm name and style of the Camp Cozy Grocery.

Defendant Forrest filed no answer. Defendant Blocker answered by general demurrer and general denial.

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence defendant Blocker moved the court to instruct a verdict in his favor. The motion was granted, and the court thereafter entered judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant Forrest in the sum of $329.74, and against plaintiff in favor of defendant Blocker.

From this judgment plaintiff has perfected this appeal.

Defendant Blocker, not having denied the partnership under oath, was precluded from disputing same on the trial. Article 2010, R.S.1925; Terrell v. Wainwright, Tex.Civ.App., 87 S.W.2d 1114; Peveto v. Smith, Tex.Civ.App., 113 S.W.2d 216; Slama v. Mills, Tex.Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 426.

E. A. Switzer, a salesman for plaintiff, testified. This testimony tended to establish the sale and delivery of the goods to defendant Forrest. As to the value thereof, or the agreed price, it was very meager. He said there was due on the *883account the sum of $329.74. However, there was no objection to the testimony. In the absence of objection we think it was probably sufficient to raise an issue for the jury. In view of the vagueness thereof and uncertainty as to the price of the goods, even though uncontradicted, we are of the opinion that his testimony did not conclusively establish, as a matter of law, the delivery of the goods, the agreed price thereof, or their market value. For this reason we have decided the proper course is to reverse and remand this cause rather than reverse and render same.

Plaintiff’s petition is rather loosely drawn, and in view of another trial an amendment thereof might define and clarify the issues.

It is ordered that the case be reversed and remanded.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1035 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                    September 23, 2009.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
1035) entitled ``An Act to amend the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and 
Excellence in National Environmental and Native American Public Policy 
Act of 1992 to honor the legacy of Stewart L. Udall, and for other 
purposes.'', do pass with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

            Beginning on page 8, strike line 14 and all that follows 
      through page 9, line 2.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
111th Congress

  1st Session

                               H.R. 1035

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
#### In the Matter of Michael Vargas, Appellant, v Thomas A. Coughlin, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and matter remitted to Department of Correctional Services, in accordance with the following memorandum: Although petitioner failed to attend his tier III disciplinary hearing, he is nevertheless entitled to receive a written statement setting forth the disposition of the charges, including the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the penalty imposed (7 NYCRR 254.7 [c]). Petitioner’s averment that the written disposition was never given to him is uncontroverted. Moreover, while the record demonstrates that the Departmental Review Board reviewed the disciplinary hearing, that action must be viewed as a nullity. Petitioner avers that he never took an administrative appeal and the record fails to demonstrate that such an appeal was taken. The matter is remitted to the Department of Correctional Services with a direction that the written statement of disposition forthwith be served upon petitioner. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.—art 78.) Present —Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
#### Arnold Osman et al., Respondents, v Frank Sternberg et al., Respondents, and Frank Cocozello et al., Nonparty Appellants. (Matter No. 1.) In the Matter of Frank Sternberg, Respondent, v Arnold Osman et al., Respondents, and Frank Cocozello et al., Nonparty Appellants. (Matter No. 2.)

In a stockholder derivative action brought pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 626 (matter No. 1), and a special proceeding to dissolve Long Island Paneling Centers, Inc. (matter No. 2), Frank Cocozello and Donald Robinson appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), dated June 15, 1989, as denied their motion, made in matter No. 1, which was to intervene in matter No. 1 and matter No. 2.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiffs-respondents.

Contrary to the proposed intervenors’ assertion, the court properly denied their motion to intervene in matter No. 2, a special proceeding for the judicial dissolution of Long Island Paneling Centers, Inc. (hereinafter LIPC). LIPC is a major stockholder in two "satellite corporations” in which the proposed intervenors also hold stock. Those "satellite corporations” are not, however, the subject of any dissolution proceeding.

Generally, intervention should be permitted where the proposed intervenor has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceeding *(see, Plantech Hous. v Conlan,*74 AD2d 920; 2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 1012.05). However, it should be restricted where the outcome of the matter to be determined will be needlessly delayed, the rights of the prospective intervenors are already adequately represented, and there are substantial questions as to whether those seeking to intervene have any real present interest in the property which is the subject of the dispute *(see, Reurs v Carlson,*66 Misc 2d 968; CPLR 1012, 1013).

Here, there are substantial questions concerning the interest which the proposed intervenors claim to have in the dissolution of LIPC. The record indicates, and the proposed intervenors acknowledge, that they hold no stock in LIPC. Ultimately, they have made no showing that they have the *491necessary standing to intervene in the dissolution proceeding *(see,*Business Corporation Law § 1103). To allow them to intervene would confuse the issues and would not result in benefit to the corporation or the stockholders *(see generally,*20 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac § 121:7; *see also, Matter of Unitarian Universalist Church v Shorten,*64 Misc 2d 851, *vacated on other grounds*64 Misc 2d 1027). The inclusion of the proposed intervenors in the dissolution proceeding would contribute nothing to the resolution of that controversy and would only serve to delay the outcome of the matter.

Further, since the stockholders’ derivative suit has been stayed, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants leave to intervene in that action, with leave to renew upon the expiration of the stay. Bracken, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

LUIS ENRIQUE RIVERA,

TDCJ-CID No. 1740191,

Plaintiff,

v. 2:22-CV-136-Z-BR

MR. DADA, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

AND

DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIM

Before the Court are the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge to dismiss the civil rights claim filed by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 10). No objections 

to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation have been filed. After making an independent 

review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, the Court concludes that the findings, 

conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct. It is therefore ORDERED

that the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED and

the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 24, 2023. 

MATTHEW J. KACSMARYK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00136-Z-BR Document 11 Filed 05/24/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 43
Case 3:22-cr-00346-S   Document 34   Filed 12/07/22    Page 1 of 1   PageID 76
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,903
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  192,650
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               194,553
<PP&E>                                       7,174,936
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,287,006
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,082,483
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,839
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,082,483
<SALES>                                        251,266
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               252,389
<CGS>                                           38,380
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  159,798
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 92,591
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             92,591
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    92,591
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Case 5:22-cr-00041-H-BQ Document 115 Filed 08/10/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 275
# C_2016320EN.01000501.xml

| 1.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/5

---

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1442 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Central African Republic apply

(2016/C 320/06)

The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1):

1

The legal basis for this processing operation is Council Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 (2), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1442 (3).

2

3

The controller of this processing operation is the Council of the European Union, represented by the Director General of DG C (Foreign Affairs, Enlargement, Civil Protection) of the General Secretariat of the Council, and the department entrusted with the processing operation is Unit 1C, which can be contacted at:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 224/2014, as implemented by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1442.

The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil the listing criteria as laid down in that Regulation.

The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the Statement of Reasons and any other data related thereto.

The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.

Without prejudice to restrictions provided for in Article 20(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, requests for access, as well as requests for rectification or objection will be answered in accordance with section 5 of Council Decision 2004/644/EC (4).

4

Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the asset freeze or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.

Data subjects may have recourse to the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

---

(1)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 70, 11.3.2014, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ L 235, 1.9.2016, p. 1.

3

(4)  OJ L 296, 21.9.2004, p. 16.

4

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000943323
<NAME>                        TRUMP HOTELS & CASINO RESORTS FUNDING, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>             1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998       
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998       
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1998       
<CASH>                                            0       
<SECURITIES>                                      0       
<RECEIVABLES>                                 6,555       
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0       
<INVENTORY>                                       0       
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              6,555       
<PP&E>                                            0       
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0       
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              151,555       
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         6,555       
<BONDS>                                     145,000       
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0       
<PREFERRED>                                       0       
<COMMON>                                          0       
<OTHER-SE>                                        0       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                151,555       
<SALES>                                           0       
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              5,619       
<CGS>                                             0       
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0   <F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0   <F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0       
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            5,619       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   0       
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0       
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0       
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0       
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0       
<CHANGES>                                         0       
<NET-INCOME>                                      0       
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0       
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0       
<FN>                                    
<F1>Includes gaming, lodging, food & beverage and other
<F2>Includes general & administration, depreciation & amortization
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         171,658
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,350,476
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                    109,085
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,531,759
<PP&E>                                       1,328,485
<DEPRECIATION>                                 698,296
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,617,357
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,547,283
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,492,059
<COMMON>                                    16,912,544
<OTHER-SE>                                (17,390,889)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,617,357
<SALES>                                      2,560,627
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,560,627
<CGS>                                        2,269,580
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,409,171
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,838
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,832,456)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,832,456)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,832,456)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.73)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.9.1

 

Execution Version

 

GRD HOLDING I CORPORATION

AMENDMENT TO

NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

 

THIS AMENDMENT TO STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”), effective as of the Vesting Start Date set forth on the signature page hereto, is between GRD Holding I Corporation, a Delaware corporation (together with its successors, the “Company”), and the individual whose name is set forth on the signature page hereto (the “Optionee”).

 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Optionee have executed that certain “GRD HOLDING I CORPORATION/NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT”, dated effective as of January 31, 2013, pursuant to which the Company granted to the Optionee the Options set described therein (the “Original Agreement”).

 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Optionee desire to amend the Original Agreement so as to change the date from which the Options become vested and exercisable.

 

NOW THEREFORE, the Company and Optionee hereby agree to the following:

 

1.                                      All references to the “Date of Grant” in Section 4 of the Original Agreement are hereby amended to refer to the Vesting Start Date set forth below the Optionee’s signature to this Amendment.

 

2.                                      Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, all of the terms and conditions of the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and binding upon the parties, as amended hereby.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Optionee have executed this Amendment, effective as of the Vesting Start Date set forth below.

 

	
 
    	
GRD HOLDING I   CORPORATION
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Lewis L. Bird III
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Lewis L. Bird III
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Chief Executive Officer
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
OPTIONEE:
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/ Judd T. Nystrom
    
	
 
    	
Name: Judd T. Nystrom
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Vesting Start Date:   February 18, 2013