alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Servidyne, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the 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.
    
    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; andc.
    
    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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to material 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 of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: July 30, 2008
    
    /s/ Alan R. Abrams

Alan R. Abrams
Chief Executive Officer
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 665

To amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974

to prohibit the consideration of retroactive tax increases.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 18, 1999

Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mr. HAGEL, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. KYL, Mr.

INHOFE, and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; which was

read twice and referred jointly pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977,

to the Committees on the Budget and Governmental Affairs, with instructions that if one Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days

to report or be discharged

A BILL

To amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to prohibit the consideration of retroactive tax increases.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDG4 ET AND IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT OF

5 1974.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Congressional

7 Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amend8 ed by adding at the end the following:
2

•S 665 RIS

1 ‘‘PROHIBITION ON THE CONSIDERATION OF RETROACTIVE

2 TAX INCREASES

3 ‘‘SEC. 316. (a) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be in order

4 in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider

5 any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or con6 ference report, that includes a retroactive Federal income

7 tax rate increase.

8 ‘‘(b) DEFINITION.—In this section—

9 ‘‘(1) the term ‘Federal income tax rate in10 crease’ means any amendment to subsection (a), (b),

11 (c), (d), or (e) of section 1, or to section 11(b) or

12 55(b), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that

13 imposes a new percentage as a rate of tax and there14 by increases the amount of tax imposed by any such

15 section; and

16 ‘‘(2) a Federal income tax rate increase is ret17 roactive if it applies to a period beginning prior to

18 the enactment of the provision.’’.

19 (b) SUPERMAJORITY POINT OF ORDER.—Subsections

20 (c) and (d) of section 904 of the Congressional Budget

21 and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 are amended by

22 inserting ‘‘314,’’ after ‘‘313,’’.

23 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of con24 tents for the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
3

•S 665 RIS

1 Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item

2 relating to section 315 the following:

‘‘Sec. 316. Prohibition on the consideration of retroactive tax increases.’’.

3 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

4 this section take effect on January 1, 1999.

Æ
#### Vass v. Magee.

Monday, September 15, 1806.

Injunction* — Dissolution after New Trial Ordered.-— When an injunction has been granted and a trial at law directed, the Court, if it is satisfied that the injunction ought to have been dissolved, will, notwithstanding no verdict has been certified, set aside the order fora new trial, and dissolve the injunction.

*

See monographic *note*on “Injunctions” appended to Claytor v, Anthony, 15 Gratt. 518.

In this case an injunction was awarded to stay proceedings on a judgment of the District Court of Fredericksburg, and in March last, a new trial of the suit at common law was directed, but no verdict having been certified, the defendant moved to set aside the order directing such trial, and to dissolve the injunction. The cause stood upon the motion docket. The motion was objected to, upon the ground that the Court will not interfere where a new trial has been directed, but will wait the event of such trial.

By the Court. From an examination of the papers in this case, the Court will be able to decide more correctly upon the objection made to the motion : but will now observe, that, while the former decisions of this Court, which have produced interlocutory orders, will be very much respected, and not interrupted upon slight occasions, yet such orders will not, in themselves, be sufficient to prevent *a motion like the present, or the hearing of a cause, regularly called, upon the Court-docket. In every such case, *12the Court will inspect the papers, and be regulated by what shall appear just and reasonable.

In the present case, the Court, having very diligently examined the papers, to discover the grounds on which the injunction was granted, is perfectly satisfied that it should have been, upon the former motion, dissolved, and that of course, a new trial should not have been directed.

The order, therefore, of March last, directing such trial, must be set aside, and the injunction now dissolved.
Exhibit 10.2


 


AMENDMENT TO


LAWSON SOFTWARE, INC.


1996 STOCK
INCENTIVE PLAN


(Adopted by the
Board of Directors on June 24, 2010 to take effect if and when (but not
before) the 2010 Stock Incentive Plan is approved by the stockholders)


 


Pursuant to Section 12(e) of
the Lawson Software, Inc. 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, the Board
of Directors of Lawson Software, Inc. has approved the following amendment
to the 1996 Stock Incentive Plan (the “1996 Plan”), effective if and when the
2010 Stock Incentive Plan of the Company is approved by the stockholders of the
Company (but not before).  Capitalized
terms that are not defined in this Amendment shall have the same respective
meanings as described in the 1996 Plan.


 


Section 12 of the 1996 Plan is
hereby amended to include the following additional Section 12(n):


 


(n)           Notwithstanding
any provision in this Plan to the contrary, on and after the date on which the
Lawson Software, Inc. 2010 Stock Incentive Plan is approved by the
stockholders of the Company (but not before), the 1996 Stock Incentive Plan is
terminated with respect to any future awards under that plan (the “Termination
Date”).  Accordingly, no equity awards
shall be granted under the 1996 Stock Incentive Plan after the Termination
Date.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Company may issue and deliver shares of common stock of the Company after the
Termination Date pursuant to the exercise of stock options or the vesting of
restricted stock or restricted stock unit awards granted before the Termination
Date under the 1996 Stock Incentive Plan.
**Exhibit 32(a)**

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Southern Company for the year ended December 31, 2005, we, the undersigned, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our individual knowledge and belief, that:

 

| (1) | such Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Southern Company for the year ended December 31, 2005, which this statement accompanies, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| (2) | the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Southern Company for the year ended December 31, 2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The Southern Company. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

|   |                     /s/David M. Ratcliffe                    

David M. Ratcliffe

Chairman, President and

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

  |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                  /s/Thomas A. Fanning                 

Thomas A. Fanning

Executive Vice President,

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

                                                |

 

 

Date:  February 27, 2006
CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

                                       OF

                               XL CAPITAL TRUST I


     THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST of XL CAPITAL TRUST I (the "Trust"), dated
October 19, 2001, is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as
trustees, to form a business trust under the Business Trust Act (12 Del. Code
Section 3801 et seq.).

     1. Name. The name of the business trust being formed hereby is XL Capital
Trust I.

     2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of the
Trust with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware is First Union
Trust Company, One Rodney Square, 920 King Street, Suite 102, Wilmington,
Delaware 19801.

     3. Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective as of its
filing.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the trustees of the Trust, have
executed this Certificate of Trust as of the date first above written.


                             /s/ Brian M. O'Hara
                             --------------------------------------------------
                             Brian M. O'Hara, as Regular Trustee


                             /s/ Jerry de St. Paer
                             --------------------------------------------------
                             Jerry de St. Paer, as Regular Trustee


                             /s/ Paul S. Giordano
                             --------------------------------------------------
                             Paul S. Giordano, as Regular Trustee

<PAGE>
                                      -2-

                             FIRST UNION TRUST COMPANY,
                                as Delaware Trustee


                             By:  /s/    Stephen J. Kaba
                                  ---------------------------------------------
                                  Name:  Stephen J. Kaba
                                  Title: Authorized Signatory
#### SMITH and PENLAND *v.*CHARLES DEWEY, Assignee, &c.

The defendant, as assignee in bankruptcy of the Bank of North Carolina, had obtained judgment at Fall Term 1869 of Burke Superior Court, against the plaintiffs upon a note made by them to the bank ; an execution coming to the hands of the sheriff, the defendants, “being unable to obtain bills upon said bank,” tendered to the sheriff one-half of the amount of the judgment, in currency, in satisfaction of the whole, which being refused, they obtained an injunction; *Held,*that it had been granted improvidently.

Motion, to vacate an injunction, overruled by Camion, Ji, at Chambers for Haywood, June 18th 1870.

The complaint alleged that defendant, as assignee in bankruptcy of the Bank of North Carolina, had obtained a judgment against them, upon a note they had given to the bank, at Fall Term 1869 of Burke Court; that execution issued therefor, and that they, “ being unable to obtain bills upon said bank,” had tendered to the sheriff one-half the amount of the judgment in currency, in satisfaction of the whole, and that it had been refused.

Thereupon, on application by them, his Honor issued an injunction. Subsequently, as above, the defendant applied at Chambers to have the order vacated. This was refused,, and he appealed.

*Moore*and *Phillips & Merrimon,*for the appellant.

Bragg, *contra.*

Peabson, C. J.

Had the plaintiff been able to procure notes of the bank, and pleaded by way of set off, an interesting question wordd have been presented. But the question made by the facts set out in the complaint, is too plain for discussion. The plaintiff’s case does not come within the meaning or the words of the statute, by the most latitudinous *464construction, to say nothing of the bankrupt law, or the rule, “ good matter must be pleaded in due form, apt time and proper order.”

The order below is reversed, and the injunction vacated.

Per Curiam. Eeversed.
# U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

Nos. 06-1932, 06-1933, 06-1934, 06-1935 JOSEPH H. REINHARDT, J.D., Cross-Appellant.
EIU GROUP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, JAMES W. BRODERICK; JOHN R. STAMATOV; ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS AGENCY, INC.; ENVIRONMENTAL CAPITAL INSURANCE BROKERAGE, INC., Plaintiffs,

v . GULF INSURANCE COMPANY; CITIBANK DELAWARE, INC.; KENT ZIEGLER, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, GULF UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY; GULF GROUP LLOYDS; SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY; ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on June 11, 2007 is amended as follows: On page 6, line 18: Replace "policies" with "properties."
<PAGE>

                           A.S.V., Inc. and Subsidiary
                 Exhibit 11 - Computation of Earnings per Share
                   Three Months Ended March 31, 2000 and 1999

                                                        2000         1999
                                                     ----------   ----------
Basic
   Earnings
     Net earnings ................................   $  416,761   $  648,947
                                                     ==========   ==========

   Shares
     Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding ........................    9,688,861    9,314,156
                                                     ==========   ==========

   Earnings per common share .....................   $      .04   $      .07
                                                     ==========   ==========

Diluted
   Earnings
     Net earnings ................................   $  416,761   $  648,947
                                                     ==========   ==========

   Shares
     Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding ........................    9,688,861    9,314,156
     Assuming exercise of options and warrants
       reduced by the number of shares which could
       have been purchased with the proceeds from
       the exercise of such options and warrants .      266,179      365,733
                                                     ----------   ----------

     Weighted average number of common and
       common equivalent shares outstanding ......    9,955,040    9,679,889
                                                     ==========   ==========

   Earnings per common share .....................   $      .04   $      .07
                                                     ==========   ==========
##### 



Exhibit 32.4
 Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant To
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated:  October 19, 2007
    /s/ Kevin KyserKevin Kyser,Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of Affiliated Computer
Services, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-20446

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JULIO CESAR BOCHAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CR-704-9

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Julio Cesar Bochas has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Bochas has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We agree with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

 

* 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

May 18, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-20446 Document: 00513997769 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2017
No. 16-20446

2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-20446 Document: 00513997769 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2017
### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ·•r!**~** 

### OFFICE OF HEARINGS '·'-· 1 • 

### WASHINGTON, DC

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL AND SCOT SPENCER AIRLIFT GROUP, INC. AND RICHARD BERNARD Unauthorized Air Transportation, Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods ofCompetition, and Violations ofPublic CharterRules EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of Competition, and Violations ofPublic CharterRules Enforcement Proceeding

STATUS REPORT**~,** 

## 1

.. 

### ll: 5

### i

DOT-OST-1995-272 formerly Docket 49233

The Office ofthe Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status ofthis proceeding and settlement negotiations. The Departmenthas not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed by the Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004- 17486.,. ' 2 There have been no further settlement discussions. Date: July 27, 2012.
Respectfully submitted,

# ~---- Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

# ~li~~Cv~ Senior Trial Attorney United States Department ofTransportation Office ofAviation Enforcement and Proceedings 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Room 96-429 Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: 202-366-9342 FAX: 202-366-7152

### 3

Docket No. DOT-OST-1995-272 I hereby certify that on this 27th day ofJuly, 2012, a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing Status Report was served in the following manner to the following: Original U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 By First Class Mail The Honorable Ronnie A Yoder ChiefAdministrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: (202) 366-2142 FAX: (202) 366-7536 ByFirst Class Mail Scot Spencer SBD Aircraft Services 255 S Leland Norton Way Sam Bernardino, CA 92408
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 160 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10471-S10472]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     TRIBUTE TO CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have the honor of rising today to 
recognize an important part of Detroit's public education, my alma 
mater, Detroit Central High School, which is celebrating the 150th 
anniversary of its opening.
  Since 1858, when the first 24 students entered a single classroom, 
thousands of students have passed through its doors. It was originally 
conceived to help prepare students to study at the University of 
Michigan, then just a few decades old itself. Today, Central has been 
continuously accredited by the University of Michigan for more than 135 
consecutive years.
  It has occupied the current location at Tuxedo Avenue and La Salle 
Boulevard for more than 80 years. I was fortunate to study and walk the 
halls there for 4 of those years.
  Central alumni have gone on to win a Nobel Prize and win Grammy 
Awards; make countless contributions to the Detroit community and to 
Michigan; own professional sports teams and play professional sports; 
and fight on behalf of our Nation in war, sometimes making the ultimate 
sacrifice.
  In all these pursuits and many more, Central alumni have been 
challenged to live up to our school's motto, adopted in 1861: Carpe 
Diem, ``seize the day.'' Our experiences at Central have helped prepare 
us to do that.
  Recently, Central has faced challenges unparalleled in the school's 
history. School budgets are tighter than

[[Page S10472]]

ever, standardized tests offer frustrating assessments of progress, and 
dropout rates and graduation rates alike moved in the wrong directions. 
But, thanks to the hard work and commitment of over 1,000 current 
students and teachers, in the past few years Central has begun an 
impressive turnaround that is heartening to us alumni.
  I offer my congratulations on this 150th anniversary and every hope 
that Detroit Central High School will continue to provide excellent 
education and imbue students with the skills and outlook to seize the 
day and find success in school and in the years that follow.

                          ____________________
```