alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 14.1
 Premier Exhibitions, Inc.
 CODE OF ETHICS AND BUSINESS CONDUCT
FOR
DIRECTORS, OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
 Introduction
     GOVERNING PRINCIPLES
 Treat in an ethical manner those to whom we have an obligation.




---



##### 



Promote a Positive, Open Work Environment
  Protect Yourself, Your Fellow Employees, and the World in Which We Live
  Obey the Law
  SPECIFIC POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
 Strictly comply with applicable laws, rules, and regulations.
 Do Not Engage in Speculative or Insider Trading
    1.
    
    Dont ever use non-public information for personal gain, and.2.
    
    Do not pass along non-public information to anyone who does not need the information to
do his or her job.
 
  2




---



##### 



Enable Prompt, Accurate, Fair, and Complete Public Disclosure
   Comply with All Prohibitions on and Limitations of Gifts and Payments
   SAFEGUARD COMPANY RESOURCES
 Protect confidential and proprietary information
   Preserve Corporate Opportunities
    3




---



##### 



Conserve Company Assets
  Maintain Accurate and Complete Business and Financial Records
     Avoid Conflicts of Interest
     4




---



##### 



COMPLIANCE
   1.
    
    Make sure you have all the facts.2.
    
    Ask yourself: What specifically am I being asked to do? Use your good judgment and
common sense. If something makes you uncomfortable because it seems unethical or improper,
it probably is.3.
    
    Clarify your responsibility and role. It may help to get others involved and discuss
the problem, keeping in mind the tenets of confidentiality and respect for others set forth
in this Code.4.
    
    Discuss the problem with your supervisor. In the rare case where it may not be
appropriate to discuss an issue with your immediate supervisor, or where you do not feel
comfortable approaching your immediate supervisor with your question, you may discuss it
with our Chief Financial Officer or contact the Board of Directors.5.
    
    Always ask first, act later. If you are unsure of what to do in any situation, seek
guidance before you act.
   5




---



##### 



BOARD OVERSIGHT AND WAVIERS
  ENFORCEMENT AND DISCIPLINARY MEASURES
   1.
    
    Individuals who fail to use reasonable care to detect a violation.2.
    
    Individuals who, if requested to divulge information, withhold material information
regarding a violation.3.
    
    Supervisors who approve or condone violations or attempt to retaliate against those
reporting violations or violators.
  Signature
    
    DatePrint Name
  6
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 of USA Video Interactive Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edwin Molina, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:



1.

this report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the 1934 Act, and



2.

the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the registrant's financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



By: /s/ Edwin Molina

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

Name: Edwin Molina

Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:August 14, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the audited
financial statements of Elgin Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries as at and for
the period ended June 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          94,082
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,677,178
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,357,450
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,167,909
<PP&E>                                         279,454
<DEPRECIATION>                                  73,055
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,415,519
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,764,837
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,653
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,415,519
<SALES>                                      2,156,589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,156,589
<CGS>                                        2,168,087
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,088,991
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,452
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             325,314
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,279,168)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,279,168)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,279,168)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)


</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-14-00431-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE STATE FARM LLOYDS, RICHARD FREYMANN,

AND DIAHANN ARMSTRONG

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Perkes and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion1 Per Curiam 

Relators, State Farm Lloyds, Richard Freymann, and Diahann Armstrong, have 

filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that this Court direct respondent, the 

Honorable Rose Guerra Reyna, Presiding Judge of the 206th District Court of Hidalgo 

County, Texas, to withdraw her order denying relators’ verified plea in abatement and to 

enter an order abating the suit for damages brought against relators by the real parties in 

interest, Reyes Banda and Clemencia Banda, until sixty days after they provide relators 

 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

with a notice letter for their claim stating the specific, separate amounts for the claimed 

damages and attorney’s fees. See TEX. INS. CODE ANN. § 541.154 (West, Westlaw 

through 2013 3d C.S.) (“Prior Notice of Action”); id. § 541.155 (West, Westlaw through 

2013 3d C.S.) (“Abatement”); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1 (“Commencement” of Original 

Proceedings). By order previously issued in this cause, this Court granted temporary 

relief and requested that the real parties in interest file a response to the petition for writ 

of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a),(b). The real parties filed a motion for 

extension of time to file their response, which we hereby grant. Such response has been 

duly filed.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, 

the response, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the petition for writ of 

mandamus should be denied for the reasons expressed in our opinion in In re State Farm 

Lloyds, Richard Freymann, and Nathan Burris, No. 13-14-00347-CV, 2014 WL _____ 

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Aug. 27, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.), available at

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/case.aspx?cn=13-14-00348-CV. Accordingly, the Court 

WITHDRAWS its request for the real parties to file a response to the petition for writ of 

mandamus and DISMISSES the real parties’ motion for extension of time as moot. The 

Court LIFTS the stay previously imposed by this Court and DENIES the petition for writ 

of mandamus and request for immediate temporary relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

2nd day of September, 2014.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4041

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus BRYANT KEITH HORTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vi rginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:99-cr-00170) Submitted: May 25, 2007 Decided: June 26, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Acting Federal Public Defender, Gretchen L. Taylor, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Darryl James Mitchell, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Bryant Keith Horton appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to eighteen months of imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but suggesting that the sentence is plainly unreasonable because it is longer than necessary to punish adequately Horton’s violation of the conditions of his supervised release. Horton was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. We affirm. Counsel suggests that Horton’s sentence is plainly unreasonable because the violations were technical in nature. We note that, while the sentence Horton received is four months above the advisory sentencing guideline range of eight to fourteen months, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a) (2006), it is within the applicable statutory maximum sentence. Moreover, our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court sufficiently considered the statutory factors and explained its reasons for imposing a sentence above the advisory guideline range. We therefore find that the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release is not plainly unreasonable. SeeUnited States v. Crudup , 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (providing standard), cert. denied , 127 S. Ct. 1813 (2007).- 3 - In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s order revoking Horton’s supervised release and imposing an eighteen-month sentence. This court requires that counsel inform the client, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of
February 2, 2012 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2012-1 (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and
the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by General Motors Financial Company, Inc. (f/k/a AmeriCredit Corp.), AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the Servicer) and AFS SenSub Corp. in
connection therewith. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that
I am the Executive Vice President, Accounting Corporate Controller of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the
fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     |  |                                         |  |  |  |                      
|------------------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------
|AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.
|                                     |  |                                         | 
|By:                                  |  | /s/ Connie Coffey                       |  |  |  | Dated: March 28, 2014
|                                     |  | Connie Coffey Executive Vice
President, |  |  |  |                      
|                                     |  | Accounting Corporate Controller         |  |  |  |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

ME2 Productions, Inc.,

Case No: 2:17-cv-759

Plaintiff,

Judge Graham

v.

Magistrate Judge Deavers

Joe Wall,

Defendant.

Order Adopting Report and Recommendation

On March 8, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation with 

Certified Facts, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B), regarding the failure of plaintiff’s counsel, Timothy A. 

Shimko, to comply with a court order to appear in person for a preliminary pretrial conference. The 

Magistrate Judge found that Mr. Shimko had not shown any basis to excuse his failure and that he 

had acted in misleading fashion in attempting to avoid his obligation to appear and in trying to shift 

blame for his conduct. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Mr. Shimko and plaintiff be found 

in civil contempt and that plaintiff be ordered to pay the reasonable expenses incurred by defendant, 

appearing pro se, to attend the preliminary pretrial conference.

No objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation. Upon review of the 

Certified Facts and the record, the court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation. The Certified Facts establish by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Shimko 

“‘violated a definite and specific order of the court requiring him to perform or refrain from 

performing a particular act or acts with knowledge of the court’s order.’” Liberte Capital Group, 

LLC v. Capwill, 462 F.3d 543, 550 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Glover v. Johnson, 934 F.2d 703, 707 

(6th Cir. 1991)). Further, the recommended sanction serves the civil contempt power’s remedial

purpose of coercing a party or individual to perform an act or to compensate the injured party. See

United States v. Bayshore Associates, Inc., 934 F.2d 1391, 1400 (6th Cir. 1991).

Accordingly, Timothy A. Shimko and plaintiff ME2 Productions, Inc. is FOUND TO BE 

IN CIVIL CONTEMPT. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO PAY defendant’s reasonable expenses 

incurred in his attending and participating in the January 9, 2018 preliminary pretrial conference.
Defendant is ordered to submit by May 15, 2018 an affidavit setting forth his reasonable 

expenses, including lost wages and incidental expenses such as parking fees, incurred in connection 

with his attending and participating in the preliminary pretrial conference.

Once defendant’s affidavit is filed on the docket by the Clerk of Court, plaintiff shall have 

thirty days to either: (1) contest the reasonableness of the submitted expenses, or (2) pay the 

expenses in full and submit to the court proof of plaintiff’s satisfaction of the contempt sanction.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to defendant Joe Wall, 1266 Weybridge 

Rd., Columbus, Ohio 43220.

s/ James L. Graham 

JAMES L. GRAHAM

United States District Judge

DATE: April 5, 2018
**Exhibit 23**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-07621) pertaining to the LCA-Vision Inc. 1995 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan and theLCA-Vision Inc. Directors’ Nondiscretionary Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement(Form S-8 No. 333-74485) pertaining to the LCA-Vision Inc. 1998 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan,and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-123522) pertaining to the LCA-Vision Inc.2001 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan of our reports dated March 1, 2006, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements and schedule of LCA-Vision Inc., LCA-Vision Inc. management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of LCA-Vision Inc. included in thisAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005./s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Exhibit
32.2




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 Acorn Energy, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael
Barth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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;
and




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




/s/Michael
      BarthMichael
      BarthChief
      Financial OfficerAugust
      13, 2009
# Georgia Department

of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Ms. Heather McTeer Toney Regional Administrator U.S

. EPA, Region
4 61 Forsyth Street

, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104

2 Martin Luther King

, Jr. Drive

, Suite 1456

, Atlanta

, Georgia 30334 Judson H. Turner

, Director 

## S E p 

## 1 4 2 0 

# 1 5

( 404) 656-4 713 Re: Georgia

' s Recommendations
for S0 2 Attainment Areas Near Georgia Power's Plant Scherer in Monroe County Dear Ms. McTeer Toney

: On June 2, 2010, the U
. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the primary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (S0 2 ) by establishing

a new 1-hour standard
at a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb)

. EPA is required to conduct an expedited round of S0 2 attainment status designations
by July 2 , 2016 as a result of the consent decree between the EPA and Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Based on this schedule, states are required to provide recommendations and supporting information
to EPA for this round of designations
by September 18, 2015. The expedited round of designations are categorized into two groups: (1) areas that have newly monitored violations and (2) areas that contain any stationary source, not announced for retirement, that emitted more than 16

, 000 tons of S0 2 , or emitted more than 2
, 600 tons of S0 2 and had a emission rate greater than 0.45 lbs/MMbtu

in 2012. Plant Scherer
is a stationary source located
in Monroe County whose 2012 emissions were greater than 16

, 000 tons of S0 2 in 2012

. Therefore, the area surrounding Plant Scherer has been identified for early designation. Plant Scherer
is located in Juliette, GA

, just north of Macon and approximately
70 miles south of Atlanta

. Georgia Power has subm

i tted a dispersion modeling report and related modeling files prepared by AECOM

, Inc. to support this early designation. Georgia EPD has reviewed the modeling report and files to ensure that the dispersion modeling has been conducted

in accordance with the final Data Requirements Rule (ORR) and Modeling Technical Assistance Document (TAD) using the most recently available information

. Based on the modeling analysis, S0 2 emissions from Plant Scherer do not cause or contribute to any violations of the 1-hour S0 2 NAAQS

. Besides Plant Scherer

, there are no other sources of S0 2 in Monroe County

. In addition, there are no large sources of S0 2 in or nearby any of the neighboring counties (Bibb, Jones, Jasper, Butts, Lamar, Upson, and Crawford)

. Therefore, Georgia EPD is recommending the following counties be designed unclassifiable/attainment

for the 2010 1-hour S0 2 NAAQS: • Monroe County, • Bibb County, • Jones County

, • Jasper County

, • Butts County

, • Lamar County, • Upson County, and • Crawford CountyShould you or your staff have any questions

, please feel free to contact James Boylan at (404) 363
- 7014. JHT:JB c : Lynorae Benjamin, EPA Region
4 Karen Hays, Branch Chief, EPD Air Protection Branch Attachments
ex1023.htm










LOAN AGREEMENT


September 3, 2015







Richard N. Jeffs (the “Lender”) of Parcela 29, Perales Viejo Vallenar, III Region Chile, advanced USD$25,000 (the “Principal Sum”) to Cell MedX Corp. (the “Borrower”) of 74 N. Pecos Road, Suite D, Henderson, NV, 89074.  The Lender advanced the funds on September 3, 2015.







The Borrower agrees to repay the Principal Sum on demand, together with interest calculated and compounded monthly at the rate of 6% per year (the “Interest”) from September 3, 2015.  The Borrower is liable for repayment for the Principal Sum and accrued Interest and any costs that the Lender incurs in trying to collect the Principal Sum and the Interest.


 


The Borrower will evidence the debt and its repayment of the Principal Sum and the Interest with a promissory note in the attached form.





	
LENDER

	 	
BORROWER


	
Richard N. Jeffs

	 	
Cell MedX Corp.


	  	 	  
	
Per:

	 	
Per:


	  	 	  
	
/s/ Richard N. Jeffs

	 	
/s/ Yanika Silina


	
Richard N. Jeffs

	 	
Yanika Silina, CFO


	  	 	  
	  	 	  
	  	 	  









  





  











  








PROMISSORY NOTE







Principal Amount:  USD$25,000                                                                                                                                September 3, 2015












For value received Cell MedX Corp., (the “Borrower”) promises to pay on demand to the order of Richard N. Jeffs (the “Lender”) the sum of $25,000 lawful money of United States (the “Principal Sum”) together with interest on the Principal Sum from September 3, 2015 (“Effective Date”) both before and after maturity, default and judgment at the Interest Rate as defined below.







For the purposes of this promissory note, Interest Rate means 6 per cent per year.  Interest at the Interest Rate must be calculated and compounded monthly not in advance from and including the Effective Date (for an effective rate of 6.2% per annum calculated monthly), and is payable together with the Principal Sum when the Principal Sum is repaid.







The Borrower may repay the Principal Sum and the Interest in whole or in part at any time.







The Borrower waives presentment, protest, notice of protest and notice of dishonour of this promissory note.











	 	
BORROWER


	 	
Cell MedX Corp.


	 	 
	 	
Per:


	 	 
	 	
/s/ Yanika Silina


	 	
Yanika Silina, CFO