alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jenifer Osterwalder, certify, that:

1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of FUSA Capital Corporation;
2.  Based on my  knowledge,  the  annual  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 annual
report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,  and other financial
information  included  in this annual  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 annual 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 our  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this annual 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; and

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's  internal controlover
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, to the registrant's auditors and the audit  committee or
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a. All significant deficiencies   in  the    design or operation of the internal
controls over financial   reporting   which   are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrant's ability to record,   process,   summarize   and   report
financial information; and

b. Any fraud, whether or  not  material,  that  involves  management  or   other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.



/s/ Jenifer Osterwalder
-----------------------
Jenifer Osterwalder
Chief Executive Officer
Duly Authorized Officer and Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer


Date: March 30, 2005
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Open Text Corporation (the Company) for
the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John Shackleton, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.



/s/ JOHN SHACKLETONJohn ShackletonPresident and Chief Executive Officer


Dated: April 30, 2008
#### William Witmer, Appellant, v James A. Biehls, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 43]

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting, defendant additional time to complete discovery. By demanding that plaintiff file a note of issue, with the concomitant necessity of filing a statement of readiness, defendant waived his right to further discovery. A demand for such filing is inconsistent with a demand for discovery *(see, King v Milazzo,*155 AD2d 1000; *Siragusa v Teal’s Express,*96 AD2d 749, 750). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J. — Set Aside Note of Issue.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.
No: 19-014 March 13, 2019

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to Hold Oral Argument

on Peach Bottom Subsequent License Renewal Application

A Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will hear oral 

argument in Rockville, Md., on March 27 regarding a petition to hold an adjudicatory hearing 

related to an Exelon Generation Company’s application to renew the operating licenses for the 

Peach Bottom reactors in Delta, Pa.

The oral argument will be heard in the ASLB Hearing Room at 11545 Rockville Pike, 

beginning at 9 a.m., EDT, to address the standing of the petitioner, Beyond Nuclear, and the 

admissibility of Beyond Nuclear’s proposed contentions. The three administrative judges on the 

Board will hear argument from counsel for Beyond Nuclear, Exelon, and the NRC staff.

The argument will be open to the public; those planning to attend will be subject to security 

screening at the NRC’s visitor entrance at 11555 Rockville Pike. Signs, banners, posters, 

demonstrations and displays will not be permitted by NRC policy. Video and audio recording, and 

photography in the hearing room are strictly prohibited. The oral argument will be webcast.

The Board is composed of three administrative judges from the NRC’s Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board Panel. Boards conduct adjudicative hearings on major licensing actions by the 

NRC, and they are independent of the NRC staff. A Board’s rulings may be appealed to the 

Commission, the five-member body that sets NRC policy.
Order entered November 15, 2018

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 00190

- CV

SHERICA REDRICK, Appellant

V.

STATE FARM LLOYDS AN D ANDRES ARMANDO GAR CIA, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 15

- 12379



### O RDER

On the Court’s own motion, we REMOVE this appeal from submission on December

18, 2018. The appeal will be resubmitted in the first quarter of 2 019

.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES

PRESIDING JUSTICE
#### Madden, Administrator, Appellant, vs. Peart and another, Respondents.

*January 7*

April *1, 1930.*

*261For the appellant there was a brief by *Robert H. Gollmar*of Baraboo, attorney, and *Grady, Farnsworth & Walker*of Portage, of counsel, and oral argument by *Walter H. Farns-worth.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *Richmond, Jack-man, Wilkie & Toebaas*of Madison, and oral argument by *Oscar T. Toebaas.*

The following opinion was filed February 4, 1930:

Fowler, J.

The court’s ground for directing the verdict was that there was no evidence of excessive speed or want of lookout on the part of the driver of the car; that an emergency not of defendant’s creation existed which excused her from handling the car as she did; and that the defendant did not increase the danger to her guest or subject her to any new dangers.

The highest estimate of defendant’s speed was thirty-five miles an hour, but the situation and the course and action of the car before and after turning over would, we think, warrant a conclusion, if such conclusion were reached by the jury, that the speed was faster than was safe under the circumstances, and the statute, sec. 85.08 (2), makes any such speed excessive. We are of opinion also that the jury might properly have concluded that had defendant kept a proper lookout she would have -observed that the car was stopped on the driveway, or observed it before it reached the road, and so decreased her speed as to have had her car under *262control, in either which case the only emergency that existed resulted from the driver’s failure to maintain a proper lookout.

Such being the situation under the evidence, the case should have been submitted to the jury as to the negligence of Minnie Peart, although a verdict was properly directed as to the defendant John Peart.

It is urged that the deceased accepted the driver of the car with such skill as she possessed, that the accident resulted from the lack of skill of the driver, and that under the rule of such cases as *Cleary v. Eckart,*191 Wis. 114, 210 N. W. 267, the plaintiff cannot recover. But it is the duty of every driyer, even to a guest, to use due care as to lookout and speed *(Poneitowcki v. Harres,*200 Wis. 504, 228 N. W. 126) *;*and it was for the jury to determine whether the defendant was negligent in these respects.

*By the Court.*— As to the defendant John E. Peart the judgment is affirmed; as to the defendant Minnie' Peart the judgment is reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on April 1, 1930.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1997

# WNP-2 Ratings Improve to "Good" in NRC Systematic Assessment Report

----

----

RIV-9725

April 9, 1997

WNP-2 RATINGS IMPROVE TO `GOOD' IN NRC SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

The Washington Nuclear Project-2 has received performance ratings of "good'' in four functional areas in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's latest Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance.

The SALP report was issued on April 3 to the Washington Public Power Supply System, which operates the boiling water reactor near Richland, WA. It evaluates the plant's performance for the period Sept. 3, 1995, to March 1.

NRC and WPPSS officials will discuss the report at a meeting at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, April 22, at the Supply System office on George Washington Way in Richland. The meeting will be open to the public for observation; NRC officials will be available afterwards for questions.

SALP reports rate nuclear plants in four functional areas -- plant operations, maintenance, engineering and plant support, and assign ratings of Category 1, 2 or 3, reflecting superior, good or acceptable performance, respectively.

In the previous SALP report, in September 1995, the NRC had rated WNP-2 "acceptable" in operations and engineering, and "good" in maintenance and plant support.

In a letter to the Supply System, Ellis W. Merschoff, the Regional Administrator of NRC Region IV in Arlington, Texas, said, "These SALP ratings, as a whole, represent a significant improvement from the previous assessment. However, additional attention is necessary to address the weaknesses that were identified."

In the area of operations, the NRC found that overall safety performance had improved and that operations management and staff had assumed more leadership in day-to-day activities. However, the report notes weaknesses in Operations' performance when challenged with non-routine situations as the plant emerged from a refueling outage last June and July.

In maintenance, the condition of the plant continued to be good, and significant improvements were noted in the planning of work activities. However, several instances of inattention to detail were noted, and the conduct of surveillance activities continued to be inconsistent.

In engineering, the NRC noted that Engineering management established a strategic plan that ensured goals were clearly identified and complemented those of other site organizations, and effectively used performance indicators to ensure that expectations were met. However, past weaknesses in engineering quality, root cause analyses of problems and corrective actions persisted.

In plant support, improvements were noted in both radiological controls and security. A decline in performance was noted in the emergency preparedness area.

NOTE: A copy of the SALP report is available from this office or on the Internet at http:\\www.nrc.gov\OPA.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
H. R. 1679 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and seventeen 

An Act 

To ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s current efforts to 

modernize its grant management system includes applicant accessibility and transparency, 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 ‘‘FEMA Accountability, Modernization and Transparency Act of 2017’’. 

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency shall ensure the ongoing modernization of 

the grant systems for the administration of assistance under the 

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

(42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) includes the following: 

(1) An online interface, including online assistance, for 

applicants to complete application forms, submit materials, and 

access the status of applications. 

(2) Mechanisms to eliminate duplication of benefits. 

(3) If appropriate, enable the sharing of information among 

agencies and with State, local, and tribal governments, to eliminate the need to file multiple applications and speed disaster 

recovery. 

(4) Any additional tools the Administrator determines will 

improve the implementation of this section. 

(b) IMPLEMENTATION.—To the extent practicable, the Administrator shall deliver the system capabilities described in subsection 

(a) in increments or iterations as working components for applicant 

use. 

SEC. 3. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED. 

No additional funds are authorized to carry out the requirements of this Act. Such requirements shall be carried out using 

amounts otherwise authorized. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 10.198



AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 (the Amendment), made as of this 1st day of January, 2003 (the Effective Date), by and between PPD
Development, LP (PPD Development) and W. Richard Staub (Employee), amends that certain Employment Agreement dated May 1, 2002 between PPD Development and Employee, as heretofore amended (the Employment Agreement).



FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual promises, covenants and
conditions contained herein, and other good and valid consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby amend the Employment Agreement as follows:



1. Amendment to Section 4. The first sentence of Section 4 of the
Employment Agreement is hereby stricken and replaced in full by the following: Employee shall have overall responsibility for business development of (a) PPD Development and all of its subsidiaries except Pharmaco Investments, Inc., (b) PPD
Global Ltd. (other than its informatics business), (c) Leicester Clinical Research Centre Ltd., (d) ProPharma Pte Ltd, (e) ProPharma Asia Ltd and (f) ProPharma CRO Pty Ltd (collectively, the Businesses).



2. New Appendix I. All references to Appendix I in the
Employment Agreement shall be deemed to refer to Appendix I attached to this Amendment.



3. Binding Effect. The Employment Agreement, as herein amended, shall continue in full force and effect.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.



PPD DEVELOPMENT, LPBy: PPD GP, LLC, its general partnerBy:

/s/ Fred B. Davenport, Jr.Name:

Fred B. Davenport, Jr.Title:

Vice President/s/ W. Richard Staub

(SEAL)W. Richard Staub
Summary Term Sheet



 Exhibit 10.4 
 Summary term sheet governing arrangement of consulting services Jason DeZwirek performs pursuant to oral agreement 
 Mr. DeZwirek will perform for API Technologies, Inc. (“API”) strategic planning services, including the identification and evaluation of financing options, capital structure, and potential
acquisitions. 
 Mr. DeZwirek is engaged as an independent contractor, and is not an employee of the Company for any purpose whatsoever,
including without limitation, for purposes relating to taxes, workers’ compensation or workplace safety insurance, payments required by statute or any other withholdings or remittances to any governmental agency or authority. No course of
dealing between the parties is intended to create, or shall create, an employment relationship, a joint venture, partnership or any similar relationship. API is interested only in the results obtained by Mr. DeZwirek and Mr. DeZwirek shall
have sole control of the manner and means of performing his services to API consistent with the policies and practices of API and with API’s interests and in accordance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations. 

In exchange for such services, API will pay Mr. DeZwirek Cnd $8,000 per month, which amount may be increased or decreased in the discretion of the
Compensation Committee. 
 In addition, API will pay Mr. DeZwirek’s health insurance premiums.
EXHIBIT
10.3

    


    Accelerated
Venture Partners, LLC

    1840
Gateway Drive, Suite 200

    Foster
City, CA 94404

    


    March 25,
2010

    


    Accelerated
Acquisitions V, Inc.

    1840
Gateway Drive, Suite 200

    Foster
City, CA 94404

    


    Re:
Tender of shares for cancellation

    


    Gentlemen:

    


    By this
letter, the undersigned tenders for cancellation 1,979,760 of the 5,000,000
shares of common stock par value $0.0001 of Accelerated Acquisitions, V, Inc.
(the “Company”) which it holds. Following the cancellation of such shares,
Accelerated Venture Partners, LLC will hold a total of 3,020,240 of the
Company’s Common Shares.

    


    Sincerely,

    


    ACCELERATED
VENTURE PARTNERS, LLC

    


    
      
        
          
            	
                    By:

                  	
                    /s/ Timothy Neher

                  
	 
      	
                    Timothy Neher, Managing Member
EXHIBIT 10.19



|     |  |                                                                |  |                                       
|---- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | 115 Sansome Street, Suite #310 San Francisco, California 94104 |  | (415) 415-7880 Tel. (415) 875-7075 Fax

10 March 2009

Hsiao D. Lieu, M.D., F.A.C.C.

2415 Hale Drive

Burlingame, CA 94010



|Re: | Amendment to Offer Letter
|--- | -------------------------

Dear Hsiao:

Nile Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) is pleased to offer an amendment to your current terms of employment as set forth in that offer letter
dated February 22, 2008, as amended to date (the Existing Offer Letter). Effective upon your agreement with the terms of this letter, the paragraph in the Existing Offer Letter beginning with For purposes of this letter, a
Change in Control shall mean . . . shall be amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

For purposes of this
letter, a Change in Control shall mean a transaction or series of transactions (other than an offering of the Companys stock to the general public through a registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission)
whereby any person or related group of persons (as such terms are used in Sections 13(d) and 14(d)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) (other than the Company, any
of its subsidiaries, an employee benefit plan maintained by the Company or any of its subsidiaries or a person that, prior to such transaction, directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, the
Company) directly or indirectly acquires beneficial ownership (within the meaning of Rule 13d-3 under the Exchange Act) of securities of the Company possessing more than 50% of the total combined voting power of the Companys securities
outstanding immediately after such acquisition. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no transaction shall be considered a Change of Control for the purposes of this letter: (A) if the stockholders existing prior to such transaction(s) hold in the
aggregate more than fifty percent (50%) of the securities or assets of the surviving or resulting company; or (B) in connection with a private placement of equity securities of the Company in connection with a financing of the
Companys on-going operations.

While the Existing Offer Letter with be amended and restated as set forth above, the remainder of your
Existing Offer Letter shall otherwise remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Please indicate your agreement with these terms by signing and dating the enclosed duplicated original of this letter agreement and returning it to me.



Sincerely,Nile Therapeutics, Inc.By:

/s/ Peter StrumphPeter StrumphChief Executive Officer


I have read and accept this amendment to my Existing Offer Letter:



|                |  |  |  |                  
|--------------- |  |  |  | -----------------
|Date: 3-10-2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Hsiao D. Lieu



Page 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7184

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LLOYD GEORGE MAXWELL, a/k/a Slider,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 97-7266

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LLOYD GEORGE MAXWELL, a/k/a Slider,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-87-

371-HM, CA-96-261-L, CA-96-941-L)
2

Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 23, 1998

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

No. 97-7184 dismissed and No. 97-7266 affirmed by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

Lloyd George Maxwell, Appellant Pro Se. John Vincent Geise, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Lloyd George Maxwell appeals

from the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

1994 & Supp. 1997) motion, his motion for a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), and his

motion to reconsider both of those orders. We dismiss No. 97-7184

as untimely and affirm the district court's orders in No. 97-7266.

The district court denied Maxwell's § 2255 motion on November

8, 1996 and denied a timely motion for reconsideration on December

12, 1996. On July 29, 228 days after denial of the motion for

reconsideration, Maxwell noted an appeal, No. 97-7184.

When an appellant claims no notice of an entry of judgment, he

has 180 days from the entry of judgment to move for an extension of

the appeal period. See Fed. R. App. 4(a)(6). Maxwell filed a notice

of appeal, unaccompanied by a motion for an extension, more than

180 days after entry of judgment. The district court therefore

lacked the authority to extend the appeal period, and we thus lack

jurisdiction to consider the appeal. For that reason, we dismiss

No. 97-7184 as untimely.

As for Maxwell's appeal from the district court's denial of

his motion for a certificate of appealability, No. 97-7266, we note

that Maxwell's § 2255 motion was filed in the district court prior

to the April 1996 effective date of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which requires such certificates in § 2255

appeals. Since no certificate of appealability is necessary in this

appeal, we affirm the district court's denial.
4

Finally, Maxwell has moved for appointment of counsel to

assist in a petition for rehearing unrelated to either of these

appeals. For that reason, we deny it. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

No. 97-7184 - DISMISSED

No. 97-7266 - AFFIRMED