alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Thomas T. Hawker, certifythat:

 

1.       I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Capital Corp of the West for the third quarterof 2004;

 

2.       Based on my knowledge, thisannual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.       Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects, the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.       The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e))) for the registrant and have:

 

a.       Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision,  toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;

 

b.      Evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c.       Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred since the third fiscal quarter of 2004 that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting;

 

5.       The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function):

 

a.       All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b.      Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | November 5,  2004                      | /s/ Thomas  T. Hawker |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------|--------|
|   | Thomas T.  Hawker                      |                  |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |                  |

 

1

----
Director Compensation Summary



 Exhibit 10.7 

 
 



 
 Director Compensation Summary 

(to be effective as of the May 2012 Annual Meeting of the Board of Directors) 

 
  
 Directors who also are employees of Quanta or any of its subsidiaries do not receive additional compensation for serving as directors. Each non-employee director receives a fee for attendance at each
meeting of the Board of Directors or any committee according to the following schedule: $2,000 for attendance at a board meeting in person; $1,000 for attendance at a board meeting by telephone; $1,000 for attendance at a committee meeting in
person; and $500 for attendance at a committee meeting by telephone.
 Upon initial appointment to the Board of
Directors other than at an annual meeting of stockholders, for the period from the appointment through the end of the director service year during which the appointment is made, each such initially appointed non-employee director receives a pro rata
portion of both (i) an annual cash retainer payment of $50,000 and (ii) an annual award of shares of restricted Common Stock having a value of $150,000. Upon initial election to the Board of Directors at an annual meeting of
stockholders, each such initially elected non-employee director receives an annual cash retainer payment of $50,000 and an annual award of shares of restricted Common Stock having a value of $150,000.

At every annual meeting of stockholders at which a non-employee director is re-elected or remains a director, each such
re-elected or remaining non-employee director receives an annual cash retainer payment of $50,000 and an annual award of shares of restricted Common Stock having a value of $100,000. In addition, at every annual meeting of the Board of
Directors, the non-employee directors appointed to the following positions receive the supplemental annual cash retainers set forth below: 
  

					
	 Lead Independent Director
	  	$	15,000	  
	 Chairman of the Audit Committee
	  	$	14,000	  
	 Chairman of the Compensation Committee
	  	$	10,000	  
	 Chairman of the Investment Committee
	  	$	10,000	  
	 Chairman of the Governance and Nominating Committee
	  	$	7,500	  

 Unless the director’s service is interrupted, shares of restricted Common Stock
awarded to non-employee directors vest over three years in three equal annual installments. Subject to the terms of applicable award agreements, unvested shares of restricted Common Stock will vest in full if the non-employee director is not
nominated for or elected to a new term or resigns at our convenience, which shall be deemed to include any resignation resulting from the non-employee director’s failure to receive a majority of the votes cast in an election for directors as
required by Quanta’s Bylaws. Directors are reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending meetings of the Board of Directors or the committees thereof, and for other expenses reasonably incurred in their capacity as
directors of Quanta.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                      <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JUL-01-1998             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      1,039,000                       0
<SECURITIES>                                        0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                              29,523,000              37,892,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                4,427,000               3,753,000
<INVENTORY>                                 2,136,000               2,289,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           31,881,000              42,052,000
<PP&E>                                     13,260,000              11,851,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              7,392,000               5,986,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             58,477,000              68,639,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      34,531,000              17,846,000
<BONDS>                                             0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                         0                       0
<COMMON>                                      110,000                 108,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 22,948,000              21,869,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               58,477,000              68,639,000
<SALES>                                       428,000               1,708,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           30,261,000              85,220,000
<CGS>                                      14,393,000              38,049,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              24,747,000              70,115,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              525,000               1,223,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            1,390,000               3,168,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            672,000               1,758,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (620,000)                  77,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                (264,000)                 153,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0                       0
<CHANGES>                                           0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                (356,000)                (76,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.03)                  (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.03)                  (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
#### Nelly Pixley *versus*Caleb Bennett.

It is no defence to a demand of dower that the demandant has released her right to a stranger.

This was a writ of dower *unde nihil habet,*in which the said *Nelly*demands her reasonable dower in certain lands situate in the town of *Lee,*in this county, of which her late husband, *Clark Pixley,*was seised in fee during the coverture.

* The tenant pleads in bar that the demandant, on [ * 299 j the Idth of October, 1809, by her deed of that date, scaled, &c., and in Court to be produced, for a valuable consideration, remised, released, and forever quitclaimed, to the said *Caleb*all claim or demand on account of dower, or any claim to the premises described.

The demandant craves oyer of the said deed, which being had, the deed purported, in consideration of 35 dollars paid to the demandant by *John Freeze,*of *Lee,*and *Timothy Edwards,*of *Stock-bridge,*to give, grant, bargain, sell, alien, release, convey, and confirm, to the said *John*and *Timothy,*their heirs, &c., all her right of dower in all the lands of her said late husband, lying in the town of *Lee,*in equal moieties, with full power to demand and possess the same, with a covenant of warranty against all persons claiming under her. Dated October 14, 1809. And thereupon the demandant demurs to the tenant’s said plea in bar; and the tenanf joins in demurrer.

*274*Mills,*for the tenant,

contended that this deed, though not made to the tenant, was an effectual bar to the demandant’s claim of dower in any of her husband’s lands in *Lee.*Having once released her claim, she is forever estopped to demand dower, whoever may be in possession of the lands.

*Whiting*for the demandant.

*By the Court.*

*(a)***The deed relied on to bar the demandant shows no privity of estate, or connection of any kind between her and the tenant. It cannot avail the tenant in this action. (b)

*Plea in bar adjudged bad.*

(a)

*Dewey,*J., having been of counsel in this cause, did not sit in the hearing or adjudication thereof.

(b)

*Park on Dower,*334. — *Gooch*vs. *Atkins,*14 *Mass. Rep.*378. — *Gould*vs. *Newman,*6 *Mass. Rep.*239. — *Davis*vs. *Hayden & Al.*9 *Mass. Rep.*514.— *Gibson*vs. *Crehore,*5 *Pick.*146.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60028

Summary Calendar

JOSE GUADALUPE VASQUEZ ALVARADO,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A200 938 977

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Guadalupe Vasquez Alvarado, his wife, and his three children, all 

natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a Board of Immigration 

Appeals decision dismissing their applications for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), based on 

threats that Vasquez received during a property dispute. They do not 

challenge dismissal of the asylum or withholding-of-removal claims; therefore,

* 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

January 30, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-60028 Document: 00512920980 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2015
No. 14-60028

these claims are waived. E.g., Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 n.10 (5th 

Cir. 2007).

Review of factual findings underlying the conclusion that an alien is not 

eligible for relief under CAT is conducted pursuant to the substantial-evidence 

standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006) (citations 

omitted). Under that standard, we may not reverse unless “the evidence 

supports a contrary conclusion . . . [and] compels it”. Id. (emphasis in original) 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Petitioners assert: they are likely to be tortured if they return to Mexico; 

and the Mexican government will disregard such torture. The evidence, 

however, shows: criminals extorted Vasquez once; and, although these 

criminals do not possess the deed they demanded from Vasquez, they control 

the land to which the deed applies. The conclusory assertion that Vasquez or 

his family will be tortured if they return to Mexico and that such torture will 

be with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government is insufficient 

to compel a conclusion different from that reached by the BIA. 

DENIED.

2

 Case: 14-60028 Document: 00512920980 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2015
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharu BEY, a/k/a Jeffrey Lewis, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7008

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

Sharu Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sharu Bey appeals the district court’s text order denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Bey, No. 3:07-cr-00079-FDW-2 (W.D.N.C. July 14, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Jacky K. Anderson, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 of Grayson Bankshares, 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; and



(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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially 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 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; and



(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:  August 12, 2005

/s/ Jacky K. Anderson

Jacky K. Anderson

President and Chief Executive Officer
Gary RODGERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-116

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Harry CHARLES, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-831

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 24, 2018

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and David M. Dixon, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OSVALDO BUENROSTRO

HERNANDEZ, Petitioner,

v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 73029 Agency No. A092

- 998

- 803

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2021 * *
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Osvaldo Buenrostro

- Hernandez , a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions pro

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’ s denial of a motion to reopen

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 17

- 73029

and review de novo questions of law

. Bonilla v. Lynch , 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016) . We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Buenrostro

- Hernandez’s motion to reopen as untimely , where it was filed more than five months after the
order of removal became final , and Buenrostro

- Hernandez did not establish changed country conditions in Mexico to qualif y for the regulatory exception to the filing deadlin e
. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (movant required to produce material evidence with
motion to reopen that conditions in country of nationality had changed)

. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s de nial of sua sponte reopen ing
where Buenrostro

- Hernandez has not raised a legal or constitutional error

. See
Bonilla , 840 F.3d at 588 (“[T]his cour t has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”)

. Buenrostro

- Hernandez’s contentions that the agency violated his right to due

process fail

. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). We rejected as unsupported by the record
Buenrostro

- Hernandez’s contentions that the immigration judge failed to grant a motion to reopen

. We lack jurisdiction to consider Buenrostro

- Hernandez ’s contentions relating to the immigration judge’s denial of relief under former INA §3 17

- 73029

212(c) , 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) because he failed to file a timely petition for review of
that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”); see also Singh v.
INS , 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003) (30

- day deadline is “mandatory and jurisdictional”)

. PETIT ION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### Benedetta Piscitello, Respondent, v Arthur Brandt, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 887]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about January 22, 1999, which, on renewal and reargument, vacated a prior order of the same court and Justice (which had granted defendant’s motion on default for summary judgment on his counterclaims and dismissal of the complaint) and denied summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), *338entered on or about May 14, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff alleges she was fraudulently induced to enter into a net lease agreement by misrepresentations as to the condition of the premises, the rent roll and the cost of restoration. Issues of fact are raised with respect to whether a $400,000 prepayment constituted rent, an option to purchase or some other item; whether misrepresentations were made regarding the nature of the agreement and plaintiff’s ability to finance the purchase; and whether defendant’s attorney inappropriately represented both parties to the transaction. Since defendant failed to enter judgment on the grant of his original motion to dismiss, plaintiffs reargument motion was timely.

Contrary to the recital in the net lease agreement, the writing does not constitute the entire agreement between the parties *(cf. Fogelson v Rackfay Constr. Co.,*300 NY 334, 340 [1950]). The $400,000 prepayment, conceded by defendant to have been an integral part of the transaction, was neither included in the net lease agreement nor disclosed to defendant’s attorney, who drafted the agreement *(see Allied Sheet Metal Works v Kerby Saunders, Inc.,*206 AD2d 166, 171 [1994]).

As to the counterclaims, there are issues of fact as to whether a judgment of possession predicated on nonpayment of rent was properly obtained inasmuch as the measure of rent prepayment is uncertain. In any event, rescission of the net lease would obviate any judgment obtained thereunder. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.
A.W. v. ST. CLAIR COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160141

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.