alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 14.1
**Code of Ethics for AMERIGROUP Financial Executives**
In my role as an executive of AMERIGROUP Corporation, I certify to you that Iadhere to and advocate the following principles and responsibilities governingmy professional and ethical conduct.
To the best of my knowledge and ability:
1. I act with honesty and integrity, avoiding actual or apparent conflictsof interest in personal and professional relationships. 2. I provide information that is accurate, complete, objective, relevant,timely and understandable and ensure the same is disclosed in reports anddocuments that AMERIGROUP files or submits to the SEC and other regulatoryagencies. 3. I comply with rules and regulations of federal, state, provincial andlocal governments, and other appropriate private and public regulatoryagencies. 4. I act in good faith, responsibly, with due care, competence anddiligence, without misrepresenting material facts or allowing myindependent judgment to be subordinated. 5. I respect the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of mywork except when authorized or otherwise legally obligated to disclose.Confidential information acquired in the course of my work is not used forpersonal advantage. 6. I share knowledge and maintain skills important and relevant to myconstituents’ needs. 7. I proactively promote ethical behavior as a responsible partner amongpeers in my work environment. 8. I achieve responsible use of and control over all assets and resourcesemployed or entrusted to me.      [Signature]           Date
*

Pursuant to 5TH CIR.R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 15, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-40088

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 PlaintiffAppellee,

versus

ANTHONY LOUIS EATON,

 DefendantAppellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CR-136-1

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

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony Louis Eaton pleaded guilty to possession of an unregistered firearm and was

sentenced to 37 months of imprisonment, two years of supervised release, and a $100 special

assessment. Eaton argues on appeal that under United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the

district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights when it increased his offense level by two levels
 

-2-

due to his use of a destructive device and when it increased his offense level by four levels due to his

use of a firearm in connection with a felony based on facts that were not admitted by him or found

by a jury. Eaton preserved this issue by arguing in the district court that his sentence violated Blakely

v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). See United States v. Akpan, 407 F.3d 360, 376 (5th Cir. 2005).

Eaton admitted the facts underlying the two-level increase in his offense level for possession

of a destructive device when he pleaded guilty to possessing a destructive device as stated in the

indictment and when he signed an agreed stipulation, which was admitted without objection at

rearraignment, stating that he knowingly possessed a destructive device, “identified as an incendiary

bomb” under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f). However, because he did not admit the facts underlying the fourlevel increase in his offense level for use of a firearm in connection with a felony, the district court

committed error under Booker when it made this increase. See Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 755-56. The

Government concedesthat it cannot meet its “burden ofshowing that the error was harmless beyond

a reasonable doubt.” See United States v. Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282, 285 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly,

Eaton’s sentence is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. See id. at

285-87.

Eaton also argues that the district court erred in determining that under the Sentencing

Guidelines, hissentence should be increased for his use of a firearmin connection with another felony

offense. However, because this case is remanded for sentencing under Booker, this court need not

address this issue. See Akpan, 407 F.3d at 377 n.62. 

VACATE SENTENCE; REMAND FOR RESENTENCING.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 135260 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr.

_____________ _______________ _____________ Stephen J. Markman, Justices IN RE ESTATE OF DAVID J. TRUITT, Deceased.

_____________ _______________ _____________ BETH KIENITZ, Personal Representative of the Estate of DAVID J. TRUITT, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 135260 COA: 269807 Menominee PC: 05-000153-CZ CAROL J. EISENZOPH, Respondent-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 4, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0317 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 24, 2008

Clerk
Exhibit 13.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Yair Fudim, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:




1. This Annual Report on Form 20-F of R.V.B. Holdings Ltd. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2013 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: April 28, 2014




/s/Yair Fudim
Name: Yair Fudim

Title: Chairman of the board of directors

(principal executive officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6071

JOSEPH BURTON MIAL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIK A. HOOKS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cv-00494-TDS-JLW)

Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 10, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Burton Mial, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Burton Mial seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2012) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice 

of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or 

order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 31, 2018. The notice 

of appeal was filed on December 17, 2018.

*

 Because Mial failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of 

appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for 

mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 586 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 586

 To amend title 11, United States Code, to limit the value of certain 
  real and personal property that a debtor may elect to exempt under 
              State or local law, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 11, 1999

Mr. Kohl (for himself and Mr. Sessions) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 11, United States Code, to limit the value of certain 
  real and personal property that a debtor may elect to exempt under 
              State or local law, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Bankruptcy Abuse Reform Act of 
1999''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION.

    Section 522 of title 11, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(2)(A), by inserting ``subject to 
        subsection (n),'' before ``any property''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(n) As a result of electing under subsection (b)(2)(A) to exempt 
property under State or local law, a debtor may not exempt any amount 
of interest that exceeds, in the aggregate, $100,000 in value in--
            ``(1) real or personal property that the debtor or a 
        dependent of the debtor uses as a residence;
            ``(2) a cooperative that owns property that the debtor or a 
        dependent of the debtor uses as a residence; or
            ``(3) a burial plot for the debtor or a dependent of the 
        debtor.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 3.7

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO
                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
                      EDUCATIONAL VIDEO CONFERENCING, INC.


         Pursuant to Section 242 of the General  Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware  (the  "GCL"),   Educational  Video  Conferencing,   Inc.,  a  Delaware
corporation (the "Corporation"), does hereby certify as follows:

         1. The Certificate of  Incorporation  is amended by striking  paragraph
"FIRST" and inserting, in lieu thereof, the following:

             "FIRST:  The  name  of the  corporation  is  EVCI  Career  Colleges
Incorporated."

             2. The foregoing  amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
provisions of Section 242 of the GCL.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  Corporation  has caused this  Certificate of
Amendment  to  its  Certificate  of  Incorporation  to  be  executed  by a  duly
authorized officer this 23rd day of May, 2002.


                                        /s/ Dr. Arol I. Buntzman
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Dr. Arol I. Buntzman
                                        Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 1259

ARMEL BAXTER,

Appellant

v.

SUPERINTENDENT COAL TOWNSHIP SCI;

DISTRICT ATTORNEY PHILADELPHIA;

ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA

(E .D. Pa. No. 2

- 18

- cv

- 00046 )

Present: SHWARTZ, PORTER

, and MATEY, Circuit Judges

1. Motion by Appellees to Publish Opinion dated April 8, 2021.

2. Response by Appellant to Appellees’ Motion to Publish Opinion

dated April 8, 2021.

Respectfully,

Clerk/ mb/arr

____________________ __ _ __________ORDER________________________________

The foregoing motion by Appellees to publish the opinion dated April 8, 2021 is granted.

By the Court,

s/ Patty Shwartz

Circuit Judge

Dated: June 1, 2021

MB/cc: Daniel A. Silverman, Esq.

David Napiorski, Esq.

Ronald Eisenberg, Esq.
#### Kroger Grocery & Baking Company, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission and another, Respondents.

*December 4, 1941*

January *13, 1942.*

For the appellant there was a brief by *Hill, Miller & Hill*of Baraboo, and oral argument by *James H. Hill, Jr.*

For the respondent Industrial Commission there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Levitan.*

*456Fowler, J.

This is a workmen’s compensation case. The only question raised may be stated as follows: May a dermatitis be considered as an occupational disease under the Workmen’s Compensation Act when an employee uses the cleaning compound known as “Gold Dust” in his work, he is allergic to “Gold Dust” and the use of the “Gold Dust” causes the dermatitis ?

The commission found the facts above stated and all jurisdictional facts, the latter of which are conceded. They also found in connection with the above that the instant workman “had a susceptibility to the development of a dermatitis by reason of coming in contact with 'Gold Dust’ so that he was more likely to develop a dermatitis from it than persons not having any such susceptibility.” The appellant under this finding bases its appeal on the propositions:

> “ (1) That a dermatitis caused by a body being allergic to some certain substance is not an occupational disease, unless that disease is one acquired by such a percentage of persons as the result of and as an incident of working in an industry over a period of time, as to lead to the «conclusion that such disease is the expectable result of conditions inherent in the occupation.

> “(2) That the law was not intended to cover every allergic tendency of certain sensitized individuals to certain substances.”

We perceive nothing in the compensation act that warrants an inference of the propositions stated. The statute merely provides for compensation for “injuries” caused by “accident or disease” that “arise out of his [the workman’s] employment.” Secs. 102.01 (2), 102.03 (1) (e), Stats. Under this language any disease that is caused by an employee’s work becomes compensable. The propositions run counter to the established rule “that the fact that there was a pre-existing physical condition without which there would not have been serious injury is immaterial.” *General A. F. & L. Assur.*
      *457
      *Corp. v. Industrial Comm.*223 Wis. 635, 652, 271 N. W. 385, and cases there cited. The instant situation is no different from that involved in *Creamery Package Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Comm.*234 Wis. 683, 291 N. W. 299, affirmed without opinion, wherein, as disclosed by the case and briefs on file, the workman was found to be afflicted with “bronchial asthma” caused by being subjected in his work to substances to which he was allergic and an award was sustained. This is the only case involving allergy which has been called to our attention. The point was there urged as here that the disease involved was “due to peculiar eccentricity of an [the] individual,” not something “which affects all individuals.”

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Appendix	G 

# FLIGHT	LOG Alexandra	Hoover DATETIME LOCATION AIRCRAFTHOURS	OF	FLIGHT		TIME PIC SIGNATURE VO SIGNATURE2Appendix	G 

# MONTHLY	MAINTENANCE	LOG Alexandra	Hoover DATE LOCATION AIRCRAFT MAINTANENCE CHECKLIST COMPLETED PIC name	&	signature NOTES NOTES2 NOTES3
AFS

- 13

- 482

- E **October 25, 2013**

Exemption No. 10521A Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- 0824

Mr. Tim McAdams Manager American Eurocopter Flight Simulation Center

2701 North Forum Drive

Grand Prairie , TX 7 6034

Dear Mr. Mc Adams :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption

No. 10521

. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated Ju ly 24, 2013

, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of American Eurocopter Flight Simulation Center (AEFSC) for an extension of Exemption No.10521. That exemption from part 60, Appendix C, Table C2A, 4.b.3 of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) permit s a geometric error of up to 12 degrees between the image generator (IG) eye point and the pilot eye point for the Eurocopter (EC) 175 Level D full flight simulator (FFS).

In your petition you indicate that there has bee n no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register be cause the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to AEFSC.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10521

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, American Eurocopter Flight Simulation Center is granted an exemption from 14 C FR part 60,

Continuous Field

- of

- Vie w tests stated in Table C2A, paragraph 4.b.3 to the extent necessary to allow AEFSC to manufacture and obtain FAA qualification of its level D FSTD. This grant of exemption is subject to the following conditions and limi tations:

Conditions and Limitations

1. A geometric error of no greater than 12° is allowed subject to evaluation by a National Simulator Program (NSP) Aviation Safety Inspector by conducting ground and flight maneuvers to validate the geometric/parallax e rror does not negatively affect qualified training, testing, or checking tasks.

2. If the objective/subjective testing is successful, the NSP Inspector will make a recommendation to the National Simulator Program Manager (NSPM) for final approval.

3. Any t raining maneuver found to not be subjectively acceptable due to geometric/parallax error will be task restricted on the FSTD’s Statement of Qualification as determined appropriate by the NSPM.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extend s the terminati on date of Exemption No. 10521 to May 31

, 201 5

, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich Dep uty Director, Flight Standards Service
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  Exhibit  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
Registrant's  unaudited  consolidated  financial statements for the period ended
April 1, 1998 and is qualified  in its  entirety by reference to such  financial
statements. This Exhibit shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 11 of
the  Securities  Act of 1933 and Section 18 of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of
1934, or otherwise  subject to the liability of such  Sections,  nor shall it be
deemed a part of any other filing which  incorporates  this report by reference,
unless such other filing expressly incorporates this Exhibit by reference.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-30-1998 
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998 
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-01-1998 
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1 
<CASH>                                               1,599 
<SECURITIES>                                             0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                        2,087 
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0 
<INVENTORY>                                          3,064 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    12,718 
<PP&E>                                              61,505 
<DEPRECIATION>                                       1,786 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     138,692 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               53,174 
<BONDS>                                             72,242 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0 
<PREFERRED>                                              0 
<COMMON>                                             1,344 
<OTHER-SE>                                           1,244 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       138,692 
<SALES>                                             72,880 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    72,880 
<CGS>                                               19,970 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       66,446 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     3,056 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3,426 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (48)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           (17)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (31)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      1,371 
<CHANGES>                                                0 
<NET-INCOME>                                         1,340 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .10 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .10 
                                               

</TABLE>
Amendment to the Continental Airlines, Inc. 1994 & 1997 Stock Incentive Plans



 EXHIBIT 4.30 

AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF 1994 PLAN AND 1997 PLAN 

WHEREAS, both the Company’s 1994 Incentive Equity Plan, as amended (the “1994 Plan”) and the Company’s 1997 Stock
Incentive Plan, as amended (the “1997 Plan”) contain provisions different from those contained in the Company’s 1998 Stock Incentive Plan; and 

WHEREAS, the Company desires to utilize the unused shares authorized under the 1994 Plan and the 1997 Plan for future Awards (as defined
therein) thereunder, and wishes to have consistent terms and conditions of its stock incentive plans with respect to all Awards made thereunder from and after the date of closing of the acquisition of Air Partners’ interest in the Company
contemplated by the Investment Agreement dated as of January 25, 1998 among Northwest Airlines Corporation, Newbridge Parent Corporation, Air Partners, L.P., the partners of Air Partners, L.P. signatory thereto, Bonderman Family Limited
Partnership, 1992 Air, Inc. and Air Saipan, Inc., as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto dated as of February 27, 1998 (such date of closing being referred to herein as the “Closing”); 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the terms and provisions of each of the 1994 Plan and the 1997 Plan be amended and restated in their
entirety, with respect to grants of Awards thereunder from and after the date of Closing (but not with respect to Awards outstanding prior to the date of Closing), to be identical to the terms and provisions of the Company’s 1998 Stock
Incentive Plan, and that the form of Option Agreements and Restricted Stock Agreements approved or to be approved in connection with the Company’s 1998 Stock Incentive Plan be approved for usage in connection with the Company’s 1998 Stock
Incentive Plan be approved for usage in connection with Awards made under the 1994 Plan and the 1997 Plan from and after the date of Closing, and that the Company is authorized to perform its obligations thereunder; provided, however, that no such
amendment and restatement shall affect the share amounts set forth in the 1994 Plan or the 1997 Plan, or shall affect Awards outstanding thereunder prior to the date of Closing.