alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I, Fran Ross, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this reporton Form 10-Q of Boston Restaurant Associates, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial information included in this report, and the financialstatements on which the financial information is based, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations, changes innet assets, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)          Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b))     [omitted]

 

(c)          Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport; and

 

(d)         Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

(a)          Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, andreport financial information; and

 

(b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date: March  8, 2004 |   | /s/ Fran Ross                      |   |
|----------------------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
|                 |   | Fran Ross, Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 7, 2020

No. 04-19-00437-CV

CITY OF HELOTES,

Appellant

v.

Jean Marie PAGE,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI01629

Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On December 18, 2019, this court issued its opinion and judgment in this appeal. A 

motion for rehearing was due on January 2, 2020. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1

On the due date, Appellant filed a motion for a ten-day extension of time to file a motion 

for rehearing. 

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is due on January 

13, 2020.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of January, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

National Security Agency (NSA), Department of Defense (DoD).

# ACTION:

Notice of intent.

# SUMMARY:

The NSA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant BrandRank.AI a revocable, non-assignable, partially exclusive, license to practice the following Government-Owned invention as described and claimed in United States Patent Number, 8,799,339 Device for and Method of Measuring Similarity Between Sets.

# DATES:

Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has until November 14, 2024 to file written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 United States Code (U.S.C.) 209 and 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 404.7.

# ADDRESSES:

Written objections are to be filed with the National Security Agency Technology Transfer Program, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6843, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6843.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen D. Presley, Director, Technology Transfer Program, 9800 Savage Road, Suite 6843, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-6843, telephone (443) 634-3519.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The prospective partially exclusive license will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States Government as represented by the NSA.

Dated: October 25, 2024.

Aaron T. Siegel,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2024-25218 Filed 10-29-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P
#### A. T. CURTIS v. PIEDMONT LUMBER COMPANY.

*(Jontract, breach of*— Void *Contract by Vendee*— Action *by Vendor.*

Where a contract for the sale of personal property was void the seller cannot, by virtue of the same or by reason of any mere technical acceptance under it and where there has been no delivery to and conversion by the vendee, recover the difference between the contract price and the amount for which the vendor, after tender, afterwards sold the property.

Civil actioN, tried at Spring Term,. 1894, of McDowell Superior Court, before *Shuforcl, J.,*and a jury.

The case has been before this Court twice (109 N. C., 401, and 113 N. C., 417), and the facts stated in the reports of those appeals are substantially the same as govern in this appeal.

There was judgment below for the plaintiff, and defendant appealed.

*Mr. W. J. Peele,*for plaintiff.

*Messrs. S. J. Ervin*and *Avery & Silver,*for defendant (appellant).

Per CuriaM:

The defendant was entitled to the following instructions, which were refused by the Court:

> *531“3. The Court instructs you further that the contract in this case being void the plaintiff cannot recover by virtue of the same or by reason of any mere technical acceptance under the terms of said contract, but in order to recover the liability must have been incurred by reason of the acts of defendant outside of and independent of any contract whatsoever, and such acts must amount to an actual taking and conversion of the property of the plaintiff by the defendant to its own use, and there being no evidence of such taking or conversion by the defendant, the Court instructs you to answer the first issue, No.”

It is very evident that the defendant never actually received the logs, and that, in order to fasten a liability upon it, the plaintiff must make out his case through the alleged contract. This contract was void under the statute, and this Court has decided that there can only be a recovery “ where the corporation has received and availed itself of property sold and actually delivered to it.” *Roberts*v. *Woodworking Co.,*111 N. C., 432; *Curtis*v. *Piedmont Co.,*109 N. C., 401.

This is substantially an action upon the contract in which the vendor, after tender, has sold the property and sues for the difference between the amount brought and the contract price. As the statute has been repealed (Acts 1893, chs.. 84 and 388) it will serve no useful purpose to further discuss its provisions. Reversed.
EXHIBIT 11
               AIRBORNE FREIGHT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                     COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                             ----------------------
                                         1995         1994         1993
                                         ----         ----         ----
                                      (In thousands except per share data)
<S>                                  <C>          <C>          <C>
PRIMARY:                                                       
                                                               
Net Earnings Available                 $23,544      $37,941      $36,357
  to Common Shareholders               =======      =======      =======
                                                               
Average Common Shares Outstanding       21,050       20,645       19,255
Effect of Dilutive Stock Options           154          356          341
                                       -------      -------      -------
                                                               
Total Average Shares Outstanding        21,204       21,001       19,596
                                       =======      =======      =======
                                                               
Primary Earnings Per Share             $  1.11      $  1.81      $  1.86
                                       =======      =======      =======
                                                               
FULLY DILUTED:                                                 
                                                               
Net Earnings Available                 $23,544      $37,941      $36,357
  to Common Shareholders
Redeemable Preferred Stock Dividends      --            894        2,760
Convertible Debentures                    --          4,331         --
                                       -------      -------      -------
Adjusted Net Earnings                  $23,544      $43,166      $39,117
                                       =======      =======      =======
                                                               
Average Common Shares Outstanding       21,050       20,645       19,255
Effect of Dilutive Stock Options           250          356          552
Effect of Conversion of                   --          3,239         --
Subordinated Debentures
Effect of Conversion of Redeemable        --            559        1,710
Preferred Stock Dividends
                                       -------      -------      -------
Total Average Shares Outstanding        21,300       24,799       21,517
                                       =======      =======      =======
                                                               
Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share       $  1.11      $  1.74      $  1.82
                                       =======      =======      =======
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**
**Consent of Independent Auditors**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following RegistrationStatements of The Corporate Executive Board Company of our reports datedFebruary 2, 2004, except for Note 7, as to which the date isFebruary 27, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of TheCorporate Executive Board Company included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) forthe year ended December 31, 2003:
**Registration Statements on****Form S-3****:**     **Registration Number** **Date Filed** 333-55864 February 20, 2001333-82642 February 21, 2002
**Registration Statements on****Form S-8****:**     **Name** **Registration Number** **Date Filed**  AmendedDirectors' Stock Plan 333-74145 March 9, 19991999Stock Option Plan 333-74145 March9, 1999Employee Stock Purchase Plan 333-39832 June 22, 20002001 Stock Option Plan 333-67238 August 10, 20012002 Non-Executive Stock Incentive Plan 333-103538 February 28, 2003
 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Baltimore, Maryland
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129619 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129619 

 COA: 253450 

St Clair CC: 03-002145-FH 

GEORGE JAMES HARRIS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 9, 2005 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0221 

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. 

February 27, 2006 

Clerk
First Amendment to Continental Airlines, Inc. Incentive Plan 2010



 EXHIBIT 4.4 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO 

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC. 

INCENTIVE PLAN 2010 

(as amended and restated through February 17, 2010) 

WHEREAS, Continental Airlines, Inc. (the “Company”) has heretofore adopted the Continental Airlines, Inc. Incentive Plan
2010 (as amended and restated through February 17, 2010) (the “Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Company has
heretofore entered into that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger among UAL Corporation, the Company and JT Merger Sub Inc. dated May 2, 2010, as the same may be amended from time to time (the “Merger Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the Company is required to amend the Plan, pursuant to Section 6.4(a)(v) of the Merger Agreement, to ensure that,
after the Effective Time (as such term is defined in the Merger Agreement), no Continental Stock Options or Continental Stock-Based Awards (each such term as defined in the Merger Agreement) may be granted under the Plan and that from and after the
Effective Time, awards under the Plan shall be granted with respect to United Common Stock (as such term is defined in the Merger Agreement); 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows: 

I. Effective as of the Effective Time and for the sake of clarity: 

The following shall be added as a new Section 5(e) of the Plan: 

“(e) Notwithstanding any provision of the Plan or in any Grant Document to the contrary, effective as of the Effective Time (as
defined in the Agreement and Plan of Merger among UAL Corporation, the Company and JT Merger Sub Inc. dated May 2, 2010, as the same may be amended from time to time): 

(i): Immediately following the Effective Time, the following Awards may no longer be granted under the Plan with respect
to the Common Stock of Continental Airlines, Inc.: (A) Options, Restricted Stock Awards, or Other Stock Awards, and (B) SARS, Performance Awards, or Incentive Awards that may be settled in shares of Common Stock; and 

(ii) From and after the Effective Time, any of the following Awards granted under the Plan shall be granted with respect
to the common stock, par value $0.01 per share, of UAL Corporation, a Delaware corporation, or any successor thereto: (A) Options, Restricted Stock Awards, or Other Stock Awards, and (B) SARS, Performance Awards, or Incentive Awards that
may be settled in shares of Common Stock.” 
 II. As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned officer of the Company acting
pursuant to authority granted to him by the Board of Directors of the Company has executed this instrument on this 27th
day of September, 2010. 
  

			
	CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.
		
	By:	 	     /s/ Jeffery A. Smisek

		 	    Jeffery A. Smisek
		 	     Chairman of the Board, President and

    Chief Executive Officer




 

 -2-
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 213 (Monday, November 4, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 87570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25652]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, November 6, 2024--11 a.m.

PLACE: Meeting will take place remotely and in person at 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, Maryland, Room 420.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Closed to the Public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Meeting Matter: Briefing Matter.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Alberta E. Mills, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-504-7479 (Office) or 240-863-8938 
(Cell).

    Dated: October 30, 2024.
Alberta Mills,
Commission Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-25652 Filed 10-31-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                18,679
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                        333,318
<ALLOWANCES>                          10,140
<INVENTORY>                           39,726
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     435,788
<PP&E>                             2,074,400
<DEPRECIATION>                     1,052,515
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     1,501,577
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                333,257
<BONDS>                              249,149
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                              50,819
<OTHER-SE>                           718,333
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       1,501,577
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   3,074,525
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      2,840,058
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    12,882
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      221,585
<INCOME-TAX>                          84,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                         137,285
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           2.77<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                           2.72<F2>
<FN>
<F1>EARNINGS PER SHARE - BASIC
<F2>EARNINGS PER SHARE - DILUTED
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (SUBSECTION (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES
                                     CODE)

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of
Alexander's, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's
knowledge, that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

February 24, 2004                      /s/ Joseph Macnow
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Name: Joseph Macnow
                                       Title: Executive Vice President and Chief
                                       Financial Officer
#### Sibley Loaning Company, Appellee, v. D. L. McCausland *et al.,*Appellants.

Appeal: certificate of trial judge.

*Appeal from Oseeola District Court.*— Hon. C. H. Lewis, Judge.

Tuesday, October 28, 1890.

*D. D. MeCallum,*for appellants.

O. *J. Clark,*for appellee.

Given, J.

The pleadings show that appellee asks to recover the possession or value of a certain gray mare, alleged to be of the valué of seventy-five dollars, by virtue of a certain chattel mortgage. The petition shows the execution by one Irwin of several promissory notes at different times, and chattel mortgages upon the mare ini question to secure the same, and that said notes and mortgages were for the same debt and renewals of the one originally given. The answer shows *758that a mortgage was executed to the defendant upon the same property prior to the one under which plaintiff claims, but subsequent to the one of which he alleges it was a renewal. Defendant claims that the latter mortgage was not a renewal, but to secure a new and different debt. The contention is as to the priority of these mortgages. The amount in controversy, as shown by the pleadings, does not exceed one hundred dollars, and the case does not involve any interest in real property, and is, therefore, not appealable except upon certificate of the trial judge. Code, sec. 3173. No certificate having been granted by the trial judge, the appeal must be dismissed. Dismissed.
#### STATE v. WILLIAM COPPERSMITH and another.

*Affray*— Jurisdiction.

An affray is cognizable in the superior court, as to both defendants, where it appears that a deadly weapon was used by either.

INDICTMENT for an affray tried at Fall Term, 1882, of Pas-quotank Superior Court, before *Gilliam, J.*

The defendants, Coppersmith and Hayes, are charged with an affray, and each with making an assault upon the other with a deadly weapon. The jury found both guilty.

Upon the trial it was shown that Coppersmith struck the other defendant with a small stick, inflicting no serious damage, whereupon the latter discharged a loaded pistol at his assailant.

The court being of opinion that the superior court had no juris*615diction of the offence of the said Coppersmith, as disclosed in the evidence, “dismissed the action as to him,” and from this ruling the solicitor appealed.

*Attorney-General,*for the State.

No counsel for defendant.

Smith, C. J.

The ruling is erroneous, since on a conviction of an offence cognizable by the court, as described in the bill of indictment, it must, upon motion of the solicitor, proceed to judgment, unless the verdict be set aside and a new trial ordered. The record shows that the defendants have, each of them, committed a criminal act within the jurisdiction of the trying court, and for which no motion in arrest of judgment could be entertained.

The order of dismissal is, therefore, erroneous and inconsistent with the record, and the state is entitled to judgment against each defendant, consequent upon the verdict as it stands.

The ruling of the court belbw must be reversed, and this will be certified to the end that judgment may be rendered.

Error. Reversed.