alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ex10-29.htm










Exhibit 10.29




	  
	
State of Delaware 


Secretary of  State 


Division of Corporations


	
Delivered 12:00 PM 06/12/2014


	
FILED 12:00 PM 06/12/2014


	
SRV 140829414  - 5550796  FILE









CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION







OF


 


U-Vend America, Inc.


 


 


FIRST.  The name of the corporation is U-Vend America, Inc.


 


SECOND.  The corporation's registered office in the State of Delaware is located at 1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301, Wilmington, DE 19803 in New Castle County.  The name of its registered agent at such address is United States Corporation Agents, Inc.


 


THIRD.  The purpose of the corporation is to engage in any lawful act or activity for which a corporation may be organized under the General Corporation Law of Delaware.


 


FOURTH.  The corporation is authorized to issue one class of stock to be designated "Common Stock."  The total number of shares which the corporation shall have the authority to issue is 100 shares of Common Stock, and the par value of each of such shares is $0.01.


 


FIFTH.  The incorporator of the corporation is LegalZoom.com, Inc., and its mailing address is 101 N. Brand Blvd., 11th Floor, Glendale, CA 91203.


 


SIXTH.  In furtherance and not in limitation of the powers conferred by statute, the Board of Directors of the corporation is expressly authorized to adopt, amend or repeal bylaws of the corporation.


 


SEVENTH.  Elections of directors need not be by written ballot except and to the extent provided in the bylaws of the corporation.


 


EIGHTH.  The personal liability of the directors of the corporation for monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a director shall be eliminated to the fullest extent permitted by the General Corporation Law of Delaware. The corporation is authorized to indemnify, and advance expenses, to its officers, employees, other agents of the corporation and any other person to which the General Corporation Law of Delaware permits the corporation to provide indemnification to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.







 




  





  











  






 







Any repeal or modification of this Section Eighth, by amendment of such section or by operation of law, shall not adversely affect any right or protection of a director, officer, employee or other agent of the corporation existing at the time of, or increase the liability of any such person with respect to any acts or omissions in their capacity as a director, officer, employee, or other agent of the corporation occurring prior to, such repeal or modification.


 







I, the undersigned, as the sole incorporator of the corporation, hereby declare and certify that this certificate of incorporation is my act and deed and that the facts stated in this Certificate of Incorporation are true.


 







Date: June 11, 2014


 




	
/s/ Cheyenne Moseley                                         


	
LegalZoom.com, Inc., Incorporator


	
By: Cheyenne Moseley, Assistant Secretary
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.4B
CHS ANNUAL VARIABLE PAY PLAN 
APPENDIX B, 2017 PLAN MODIFICATION        
     
CHS is implementing a plan modification to the CHS Annual Variable Pay Plan (the Plan) for fiscal 2017 (“Modification”). This allows for an Award at the threshold performance target to be earned if the Company’s fiscal 2017 ROAE is less than the threshold performance target, provided the following enterprise goals (“Modification Goals”) are both determined to have been achieved:


		
	•
	Total company selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses do not exceed the amount of total Company SG&A budgeted in the fiscal 2017 budget approved by the CHS Board of Directors; and


		
	•
	At least 95 percent of exempt-classified employees have completed fiscal 2016 performance reviews and fiscal 2017 performance goals as measured in the records of the Company’s TalentManager system.




Under the Modification, if CHS does not achieve the threshold ROAE results, but it is determined the Modification Goals have been met, Participants will earn an award for all three components (ROAE, ROA, Individual) at the threshold award level. 
The examples below illustrate earned compensation under the Modification for both a Corporate Contributor and a Business Unit Contributor who have the same base pay and target award opportunity:


Corporate Contributor
	
					
	Award Target
	ROAE
60% Weight
	ROA
10% Weight
	Individual
30% Weight
	100% Total

	Maximum
	$4,200
	$700
	$2,100
	$7,000

	Target
	$2,100
	$350
	$1,050
	$3,500

	Threshold
	$1,050
	$175
	   $525
	$1,750






Business Unit Contributor
	
					
	Award Target
	ROAE
10% Weight
	ROA
60% Weight
	Individual
30% Weight
	100% Total

	Maximum
	$700
	$4,200
	$2,100
	$7,000

	Target
	$350
	$2,100
	$1,050
	$3,500

	Threshold
	$175
	$1,050
	   $525
	$1,750




Also, if the threshold ROAE results are not achieved and it is determined that the Modification Goals have been met, a business unit that achieves ROA results of target goal level or higher will receive the higher value of the following awards:
		
	•
	Modification earned award at threshold award level, or


		
	•
	Earned award for the business unit component only (CHS ROAE and Individual component earned award is zero under this scenario) 


In the following example a business unit achieves 110% of its target ROA goal, so even though the CHS threshold ROAE results have not been achieved, the business unit component of the Plan provides an earned award. In this case the business unit earned award is $2,310, which is higher than the Modification earned award of $1,750. The Business Unit Contributor role would receive the earned award of $2,310.


Business Unit Contributor
	
							
	Performance Measures
	Goal Weighting
	Target Award 
	X
	Performance to Target
	=
	Goal/ Award Result

	CHS ROAE
	10%
	   $350
	X
	   0%
	=
	$0

	Business Unit ROA
	60%
	$2,100
	X
	 110%
	=
	$2,310

	Individual Performance
	30%
	$1,050
	X
	 0%
	=
	$0

	Totals
	100%
	$3,500
	 
	 
	 
	$2,310
<Page>
                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

Scottish Annuity & Life Insurance Company (Cayman) Ltd.

Scottish Annuity & Life Holdings (Bermuda) Limited

Scottish Annuity & Life Insurance Company (Bermuda) Limited

Scottish Holdings (Barbados), Limited

Scottish Holdings (U.S.), Inc.

Scottish Annuity & Life International Insurance Company (Bermuda) Ltd.

Scottish Re (U.S.), Inc.

Scottish Re Intermediaries (Canada) Limited

Scottish Re (Dublin) Limited

Tartan Wealth Management, Inc.

The Scottish Annuity Company (Cayman) Ltd.

World-Wide Holdings Limited

World-Wide Reassurance Company Limited

World-Wide Corporate Capital Limited

World-Wide Insurance PCC Limited
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  I, Mark Cohen, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AI Document Services, 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. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and  c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, 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 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  6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.   Date: April 17, 2013   /s/ Mark Cohen Mark Cohen Title: President and Chief Financial Officer
TT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0028

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

DUSTIN LEE SEYLER, 

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including May 15, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 11 2024

04/11/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0028
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

JOE AGUIRRE, Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. § § § § § No. 08

- 24

- 00108

- CR

Appeal from the
466th District Court of Comal County, Texas (TC# CR2017

- 339E)

CONCURRING OPINION I join with t he majority in concluding that we lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of appellant’s appeal. I write separately , however, because I am unable to turn a blind eye to a clerical

error that came to light during our jurisdictional review. The error a ppears on the face of each of the several judgments of conviction. When jurisdiction is established, a n appellate court has the power to correct and reform a trial court judgment to make the record speak the truth when it has the necessary data and
information to do so. Nolan v. State, 39 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (citing Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1991, pet. ref ’ d)) ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b). Here, t he indictment charged appellant with 11 counts of possession with intent to promote child pornography in violati o n of Texas Penal Code § 43.26(e) , and thesecounts were enhanced by his prior conviction for possession of a prohibited weapon pursuant to

Texas Penal Code § 12.42(b)

. Related thereto, and relevant to this appeal, a ppellant signed a
written Plea Bargain Agreement entered into with the State , which was admitted into evidence as State’s Exhibit 1 . T he Plea Bargain Agreement reflects that appellant agree d he w ould plead guilty to, and be found guilty of, the offense of “possession of child pornography with intent to promote[,]
11 counts.” In reviewing each of the judgments of conviction, the charged o ffense is correctly
describe d but the same cannot be said for the correlating reference to the penal code provision

. Instead of Texas Penal Code § 43.26(e) appearing on the face of the judgments , each incorrectly

state s the charged offense as “43.2(e) , ” which is a nonexistent statutory provision

. I searched but did not find clear authority permit ting us to correct and reform the se judgments where our jurisdiction is lacking

. That being said, however, the trial court itself does not appear to be precluded from entering judgments nunc pro tunc to correct for clerical error s
. See Alvarez v. State , 605 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980) (“Even though thirty days have passed after the entry of a judgment, a trial court retains the power to enter a nunc pro tunc order correcting any ‘clerical error’ which may appear in the judgment.”). Although I write separately to address this linge ring concern, I otherwise join and concur with the majority’s dismissal of this appeal for the reasons given. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice May 2 4 , 2024 Before Palafox and Soto, JJ., and Barajas, C.J., (Ret

. ) Barajas, C.J., (Ret

. ), (sitting by assignment) Pal afox, J., concur r ing
### Adams. Kevin (OST) ._/.

From: 

### Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kevin, Livsey,Will <WiII.Livsey@aa.com> Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:34 PM Adams, Kevin (OST) Morris, Dale; Karayiannakis, George; Teel, Paige;Vannette, Mark RE:Carrier Selection Order at 6Communities and Tentative Selection at Watertown

American Airlines does not object to this order. Please let us know if additional action is required once the Office of Aviation Analysis rules this decision final. Kind regards, 

## AmeriicanAirlines

# "i..
Will Livsey Regional Partnerships, Network Planning 817-967-1743 Office 1817-681-5158 Mobile 

### J> -'"-,~-', .~"" •... "', I."~
. 

### >~:;"J ';:~ ::~:: 

# 1~~1~1~;ig ~):;:~Z'~l

From: Kevin.Adams@dot.gov [mailto:Kevin.Adams@dot.gov] 

### sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 11:10AM 

### To: egiso@watertown-ny.gov; jlawrence@co.jefferson.ny.us; jgraham@watertown-ny.gov; roberth@co.jefferson.ny.us; saddison@watertown-ny.gov; Noeledc@lighthouse.net; CCEDC@Sault.com; citvclerk@Sault.com; KAtkins@EmmetCountv.org; Jgi1lett1939@sbcglobal.net; Clerk@cityofHancock.com; dhext@HoughtonCounty.net; Manager@CityofHancock.com; Scott@cityofHoughton.com; hammersleybo@co.muskegon.mi.us; jack@sixelconsulting.com; Bryon. Mazade@postman.org; piettema@co.muskegon.mi.us; 9kaler@paducahkv.gov; Padapt@barkleyregional.com; charity.speich@chippewavalleyairoort.com; CityHall@EauClaireWI.gov 

### Cc: brad.rawson@skywest.com; Mike.Thompson@skywest.com; Sascha.Vanderbelien@delta.com; Livsey, Will; Morris, Dale; Thomas, Michael 

### Subject: carrier Selection Order at 6 Communities and Tentative Selection at Watertown Hi All, Attached isa hopefully self-explanatory order. Ifyou have any questions, please give me acall. Best, Kevin Adams 202-366-1047

NOTICE:This email and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential useof the intended recipient{s). Ifyou are not an intended recipient, please do not read, distribute, or take action in reliance upon this message. Ifyou have 1
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Power 3Medical Products, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the yearending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven B. Rash, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
|                                | By:    | /s/ Steven B. Rash                                                                          |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                | Name:  | Steven B. Rash                                                                              |
| Date:  September 9,  2005 | Title: | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive  Officer)  Power 3 Medical Products, Inc. |

 

1

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1676** 

MARIE THERESE ASSA’ AD

- FALTAS, MD MPH for herself and qui tam and Ex Rel the government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and qui tam the United States of America , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; NIMRATA HALEY, as SC ’ s Governor; ALAN WILSON, as SC ’ s A ttorney General; KEN ARD, as SC’ s Lieutenant Governor and President of its Senate; GLENN MCCONNELL, as President pro tempore of SC’ s Senate and ch air of its judicial merit selection commission; JEAN TOAL, as administrative head of all SC ’ s state courts; SOUTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY; MARK KEEL, as chief of SC ’ s State Law Enforcement Division; KEN LANCASTER, as acting head of SC’ s Department of Pub lic Safety; LEON LOTT, as sheriff of Richland County SC and warden of the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center; JEANE TTE MCBRIDE, as Richland County’ s Clerk of Court; WILLIAM NORMAN NETTLES, as US Attorney for the District of South Carolina; CITY OF COLUMBIA, a ll solely officially and for injunctive and qui tam relief; LESLEY MCALLI STER COGGIOLA, officially as SC’ s disciplinary counsel solely for injunctive relief; JAKE KNOTTS, falsely bearing the title of SC state senator; DANA TURNER, falsely bearing the title of Chief A dministrative Judge of the City’ s Municipal Court; RANDY SCOTT, falsely bearing the title of the City ’ s Chief of Police; MARION HANNA, falsely bearing the title of CMC judge; KEN GAINES; ROBERT G. COOPER; DAVID A. FERNANDEZ, supposed attorneys f or the city and all their subordinates who did and or intend to injure plaintiff all for injunctive relief qui tam damages and other legal relief , Defendants

- Appellees

.2 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Terry L. Wooten , District Judge. ( 3:11

- cv - 03077

- TLW )

Submitted : November 20, 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Marie Therese Assa’ ad

- Faltas, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Marie Therese Assa’ad

- Faltas, M.D., M.P.H., appeals
the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation to dismiss her complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 (2006), as well as its orders denying her Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) and 60(b) motions . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s orders

. See Assa ’ad

- Faltas v. South Carolina , No. 3:11

-

cv - 03077

- TLW ( D.S.C. March 22, 2012; April 25, 2012; Aug. 13,

2012 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument woul d not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 202 (Friday, October 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 83916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24076]



[[Page 83916]]

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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 18, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 11, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 469 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-72, K2025-70.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-24076 Filed 10-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Murphy, Respondent, vs. Hotel Pfister, Inc., Appellant.

*March 13*

April *14, 1944.*

For the appellant there was a brief by *Bendinger, Hayes & Kluwin*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *John A. Kluwin.*

*I. Stewart Murphy*of Milwaukee, for. *the*respondent.

Fairchild, J.

The case was tried in the civil court and judgment was entered for respondent, a jury having found in her favor assessing her damages at $500. The judgment was affirmed on appeal to the circuit court.

Respondent’s statement of facts recites that she was engaged in the advertising business; that on the day in question *212she was a guest of the appellant; that while in the dining room a tray “of waste and unconsumed food and dishes were dropped on her by a passing waiter.”

The damages wefe a resulting “big red ridge on her shoulder” and the fact that during the afternoon the shoulder became stiff. “She was upset during the afternoon and for the next couple of days her shoulder remained stiff.” It also appears that respondent was embarrassed by the accident. Her well-ordered appearance was changed into a- disagreeable spectacle and a pleasant visit with an old friend was sadly affected. She is entitled to recover damages. And the question is whether the amount o'f $500 assessed by the jury is excessive. There was injury to clothes, a bruise on the shoulder, annoyance due to disturbing her luncheon and visit with her friend, all resulting in a hysterical condition of limited duration. The chief annoyance came after the accident and from sources over which appellant had no> control. She was very much bothered and humiliated by the “razzing” she was subjected to by friends who evidently considered the accident as something of a joke. We are of the opinion that the award for pain and suffering and damage to clothes is excessive. The appellant sent her a check of $7.50 for a hat and the cost of cleaning her suit was $1.15. She had no wage loss and did not need the services of a doctor. It is our conclusion that there must be a new trial unless appellant elects to permit judgment to go against it in respondent’s favor for $200. This we consider the highest amount at which a fair-minded jury, properly instructed, would probably assess the damages. Within twenty days after notice of the *remittitur*of the record to the circuit court, appellant may signify its election to permit judgment to go against it for $200 or to have a new trial.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion.