alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MEDCARE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                     OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                                
TO:  Gary R. Blume, P.C. and the Subscribers of Series A Preferred Stock of 
MedCare Technologies, Inc.

MedCare Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") has or intends to enter into 
subscription agreements (the "Subscription Agreement") with the various 
purchasers (the "Subscribers") in an offering of Series A Preferred Stock (the 
"Preferred Stock") of the Company.  The Company has entered or intends to enter 
into various ancillary agreements, including the Registration Rights Agreement,
Irrevocable Instructions to Transfer Agent, Escrow Agreement and Placement Agent
Agreement (the "Ancillary Agreements").

Gary R. Blume, P.C. is required to provide an opinion to the Subscribers 
pursuant to the Subscription Agreement and to Swartz Investments, LLC (the 
"Opinion Letter").  Officers of the Company have been provided with a copy of 
the Opinion Letter for review and comment.  The Company is aware certain 
elements of an Opinion Letter are made in reliance on this Certificate.

Each of the undersigned, Harmel S. Rayat and Kundan S. Rayat, signing in their 
capacities as the President and Director/Secretary, respectively, of the Company
and not in their personal capacities, hereby certify to the best of their 
knowledge, information and belief, after having made due inquiry, that:

1.   The representations and warranties of the Company contained in the 
Subscription Agreement (including all exhibits thereto) entered into between the
Company and the Subscribers, on or about June 20, 1997 in conjunction with the 
offering by the Company of the Preferred Stock remain true and correct as of the
date set out below;

2.   The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 
1996 together with the Company's Quarterly Report Form 10-Q for the quarter 
ended March 31, 1997 are accurate and correct in all material respects, and

3.   No material facts have come tot he attention of the undersigned which would
make the opinion letter to be issued to Subscribers of the offering untrue, 
inaccurate, incorrect or misleading.

     DATED as of the 8th day of July, 1997.

                                        /s/ Harmel S. Rayat
                                        -----------------------------
                                        Harmel S. Rayat
                                        President

                                        /s/ Kundan S. Rayat
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Print Name: Kundan S. Rayat
                                        Title: Secretary
<PAGE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rogelio Abreu, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 663]

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Andrias, J.), rendered October 30, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, and convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of another count of criminal sale of controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a concurrent term of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for severance. At trial, the co-defendants and defendant all claimed to be purchasers, not sellers. Although co-defendant Sanchez’s testimony that defendant Abreu was the sole drug seller is in direct conflict with Abreu’s testimony, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance. Mere hostility between co-defendants, differences in their trial strategies or inconsistencies in their defenses will not, without more, require a severance. While, as the People properly concede, the testimony of co-defendant Sanchez was at its core in irreconcilable conflict with that of defendant Abreu, severance was nevertheless properly denied because defendant failed to establish that there was a significant danger that this conflict alone would lead the jury to infer his guilt *(People v Mahboubian,*74 NY2d 174, 184). While recognizing that the facts in defendant Abreu and co-defendant Nesbitt’s appeals are not exactly the same inasmuch as Sanchez’s testimony against Abreu is more *514damaging, we see no reason to depart on this appeal from our prior determination on co-defendant Nesbitt’s appeal (198 AD2d 33, *lv denied*82 NY2d 900) that the conflicting testimony of the various co-defendants as to who was the seller does not mandate a severance. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ )

SAIFULLAH PARACHA, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 04

- 2022 (PLF)

v. )

)

BARACK H. OBAMA, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

___________________________________ )

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion issued this same day,

it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Dkt. No. 440] is GRANTED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s June 16, 2016 Order [Dkt. No. 439]

represents its FINAL JUDGMENT regarding petitioner’s bill of attainders claim. This is a final

appealable order. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P

. 4(a).

SO ORDERED.

/s/

_________________________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

United States District Judge

DATE: July 29, 2016
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1602 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1602

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exclusion from 
            gross income for AmeriCorps educational awards.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2017

Mr. Lewis of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exclusion from 
            gross income for AmeriCorps educational awards.

    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 ``Segal AmeriCorps Education Award Tax 
Relief Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF AMERICORPS EDUCATIONAL AWARDS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 117(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of 
subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) 
and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(D) a national service educational award under 
                subtitle D of title I of the National and Community 
                Service Act of 1990.''.
    (b) Exclusion of Discharge of Student Loan Debt.--Subsection (f) of 
section 108 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
new paragraph:
            ``(5) Payments under national service educational award 
        programs.--In the case of an individual, gross income shall not 
        include any amount received under a national service 
        educational award under subtitle D of title I of the National 
        and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12601 et seq.).''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
No. 85-1961.

#### Leslie *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of *Griffith*v. *Kentucky, ante,*p. 314.
Unassociated Document


Exhibit 10.24


 


ADDENDUM "A"


SUGE COMPONENTS


 


As per the provisions of the Distributor Agreement between SURGE COMPONENTS INC., and FUTURE ELECTRONICS, dated March 18, 1999 the Authorized Distributor Agreement between the above captioned parties is hereby amended as follows:


 


This addendum authorizes all FUTURE ELECTRONICS branches Worldwide to sell products manufactured by CHALLENGE ELECTRONCIS under the same terms and conditions of the Surge Components Agreement.


 



All other terms and conditions to the Distributor Agreement dated March 18, 1999, . between Surge Components Inc. and Future Electronics shall remain unchanged.




 


 





	FUTURE ELECTRONICS               	 	 	SURGE COMPONENTS INC.	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
By: /s/  Sam Abrams

	 	 	
/s/ Ira Levi

	 
	
Sam Abrams

	 	 	
Ira Levi

	 
	Printed Name 	 	 	Printed Name 	 
	
TITLE: Executive Vice President

	 	 	
Title : President

	 
	 
DATE:February 27, 2003

	 	 	Date: March 12, 2003
#### In re T L G COMPUTING SERVICES, INC., Debtor.

Bankruptcy No. 3-82-00714(D).

United States Bankruptcy Court, W. D. Kentucky.

June 4, 1982.

Joseph E. Rose, trustee.

Bruce Lee Kleinschmidt, Louisville, Ky., for debtor.

ORDER

MERRITT S. DEITZ, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge.

Kentucky corporations are entitled to a general $1,000 exemption in bankruptcy. That unanticipated truth is revealed in a case of first impression involving a literal reading of the Kentucky exemption statutes, KRS Chapter 427, as amended in 1980.

T L G Computing Services, Inc., routinely claimed, in its bankruptcy petition, the exemption of a copying machine and typewriter having a total value of $850. Just as routinely the trustee objected, on the general ground that corporations are not entitled to exemptions.

KRS 427.160, enacted in 1980 when Kentucky opted out of the federal statutory scheme of bankruptcy exemptions, provided that:

> “In addition to other exemptions provided in this chapter *every debtor*shall *569have a general exemption not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) .... when he has filed for bankruptcy under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code of 1978... (Emphasis supplied).

The 1980 amendments to Chapter 427, while eviscerating what the Kentucky legislature felt to be the liberal excesses of the federal exemption schedule, nevertheless retained many of the terms of art contained in the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. For pertinent example, the Kentucky amendments of 1980 repeatedly use the phrase “individual debtor” to draw the necessary distinction between bankruptcy petitioners who are living persons and those entities existing only in law, such as corporations and partnerships.

In KRS 427.010 through 427.060, the term “individual debtor” is consistently used. A new section 427.150, created in the 1980 legislation, makes certain exemptions available to “an individual.” (The exemptions there extended to nonbankruptcy matters as well, such as state attachment proceedings, so the term “debtor” was deleted). Similarly, new section 427.170 applies to “an individual debtor.”

In the middle of these various references to “individual” and “individual debtor” there stands out the statute in question, KRS 427.160 extending the $1,000 general exemption to “every debtor.”

In recent cases involving statutory construction, we have enthusiastically followed the lead of “an appellate forum of literal bent.” *In re Johnson,*14 B.R. 14 (W.D.Ky.1981); see also *Schilling v. First National Bank of Louisville,*No. 80-3591 (6th Cir. 1982) (unreported).

The absence of the word “individual” in KRS 427.160 is so obvious that it must have been intentional. There are many reasons why the legislature would choose to extend this final entitlement, this legal equivalent of burial expenses, to failed corporations. The costs of a final tax accounting and formal dissolution come immediately to mind. In any event, we choose *not*to judicially amend KRS 427.160 to insert therein the word “individual.”

Accordingly, the trustee’s objection to the claimed exemption by T L G Computing Services, Inc., is hereby overruled. This is a final order.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I, Brian P. Alessi, certify that:

 

| 1.  I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Emerging Vision, 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 we 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; 

 

 (c) 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 materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; 

 

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 weaknesses 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; 

 

 (b) 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:       November 14, 2006 |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|

 

 

 

| /s/ Brian P. Alessi     |
|-------------------------|
| Brian P. Alessi         |
| Chief Financial Officer |
FAA MCAI INFORMATION FORM 

To: Airworthiness Authority of ___________________

In support of the FAA’s actions to address your country’s mandatory continued airworthiness information (MCAI) in the 

United States, please provide the items highlighted below by _________________, IF not contained in the referenced 

airworthiness directive (AD) or service information. 

Aircraft Manufacturer/Model ECAA AD/Revision No./Date Service Bulletin/Revision

No./Date

HP 137 Mk1 & Series 200, EASA AD 2013-0208 SB 32-A-JA851226 Revision 5

Jetstream 3100 & 3200 Series dated 10 September 2013 Dated 30 April 2013

Aircraft

1.1. Describe the unsafe condition, AND its root cause. Include description of how the problem could affect the safe operation 

of the airplane. MLG collapse was caused by cracking of the forward yoke pintle, which was the result of corrosion 

pits leading to stress corrosion at the top outer edge of the forward yoke pintle and extended along the top of the 

yoke pintle. The yoke pintle material was identified as DTD 5094, which is susceptible to stress corrosion.

After MLG collapse, the aircraft departed the runway, which prompts the risk classification to be Hazardous.

2. Provide the number and description of occurrences, which prompted the AD. 

Stress corrosion cracking of DTD 5094 standard MLG yoke pintles is a known issue and has previously occurred 

in-service on the HP 137 Jetstream 31, Series 200 and Jetstream 31 Series aircraft.

3. What is the compliance time and consequences if extended? What would be considered an appropriate 

grace period for compliance? The compliance time remains the same as the previous revision of the bulletin; 

within 12 months or 1,200 landings, whichever is the sooner (the next NDT inspection).

4. Cost of parts and/or installation workhours for the owner/operator (data from the manufacturer and 

their supplier, if applicable). It will take approximately 14 workhours to carry out the inspection task.

5. If parts are required, are they available for all aircraft? No parts are required.

6. What category best describes the unsafe condition: 

__X__Design Problem _____Quality Control Problem _____Operational

_____Maintenance _____Unapproved Parts _____Other (Specify)

7. Should a ferry flight be permitted? If no, why not?

____Yes __X__No 

For the inspection, the aircraft should already be in the possession of a competent MRO.

8. Number of aircraft affected, by model designation and serial number (U.S. registered and worldwide).

44 US registered Jetstream 31 series aircraft

22 US registered Jetstream 32 series aircraft

Including the US registered aircraft, approximately 255 Jetstream 31 & 32 series aircraft are in service worldwide.

9. Is further action anticipated to be necessary to correct this unsafe condition? If so, please provide 

description and recommended compliance time. No further action required.

10. Other: Copy of the referenced SB attached. Date: 18/09/2013

Aircraft Certification Service

Federal Aviation Administration
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JUNE 30,
1998 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE REGISTRANTS FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                    6,870
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            39,298
<ALLOWANCES>                              1,160
<INVENTORY>                               6,589
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         55,599
<PP&E>                                   11,359
<DEPRECIATION>                            3,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           65,616
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    20,884
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                     63
<OTHER-SE>                               43,994
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             65,616
<SALES>                                  61,119
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         90,412
<CGS>                                    73,495
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            87,093
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           46
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           3,521
<INCOME-TAX>                              1,443
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       2,078
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                              2,078
<EPS-PRIMARY><F1>                          0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.33
        

<FN>
<F1>     The word "Primary" should be deleted and replaced with the word
         "Basic".
</FN>

</TABLE>
NovaGold Resources Inc.: Exhibit 4.17 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






CONSENT OF GREGORY WORTMAN 

In connection with NovaGold Resources Inc.’s take-over bid
circular dated January 18, 2011 (the “Offer and Circular”) and registration
statement on Form F-8 originally dated January 18, 2011, and any amendments
thereto and any registration statements filed pursuant to Rule 429 under the
United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and any documents incorporated
by reference therein (the “Registration Statement”), I, Gregory Wortman, hereby
consent to references to my name and to my involvement in the preparation of a
technical report entitled “Donlin Creek Gold Project, Alaska, USA NI 43-101
Technical Report” dated April 1, 2009 (the “Technical Report”) in the
Registration Statement and the Offer and Circular, and to the inclusion and
incorporation by reference of information derived from the Technical Report in
the Registration Statement and the Offer and Circular. 

DATED: January 18, 2011 

/s/ Gregory Wortman      

Name: Gregory Wortman
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

VINCE HALL
, Appellant

,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 2005

[ August 18, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County ; Dan L. Vaughn , Judge; L.T. Case No.

312007CF000688A

.

Vince Hall, Daytona Beach, pro se.

No appearance required for respondent

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a)

.

D AMOORGIAN

, L EVINE
, and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001002637
<NAME> MILLENIUM, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      13,059,446
<SECURITIES>                                55,320,279
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,187,944
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            73,247,456
<PP&E>                                      30,298,568
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,798,167
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             104,980,957
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,846,245
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,743
<OTHER-SE>                                  81,991,856
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               104,980,957
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,956,183
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            99,119,085
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             333,214
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (87,418,863)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (87,418,863)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (87,418,863)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.29)
        

</TABLE>