alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Chromcraft Revington, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(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: November 12, 2007

/s/ Frank T. KaneFrank T. KaneSr. Vice President-Finance and Chief
Financial Officer
Lettie Estella BUCK; et al., Appellants, v. EMERALD COAST UTILITIES AUTHORITY and Palafox Partners, Ltd., Appellees.

No. 1D17-4548

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 30, 2018

George R. Mead, II of Moore, Hill & Westmoreland, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellants.

Bradley S. Odom and Richard D. Barlow of Odom and Barlow, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Lewis and Makar, JJ., concur.
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-60404

 

CONCORDIA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.,

Petitioner-CrossRespondent,

versus

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Respondent-CrossPetitioner.

 

Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement

of an Order ofthe National Labor Relations Board 

(15-CA-13053-2)

 

June 26, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We are not persuaded that Concordia Electric Cooperative, Inc.

is exempt from the National Labor Relations Act as a "political

subdivision" of the State of Louisiana. 29 U.S.C. § 152(2); NLRB

v. Natural Gas Utility Dist. of Hawkins County, Tenn., 402 U.S. 600

(1971). We have previously rejected the claim advanced by
2

Concordia that a public utility whose directors are elected by its

members is responsible to the general electorate. See NLRB v.

Natchez Trace Elec. Power Ass'n, 476 F.2d 1042, 1045 (5th Cir.

1973); see also Fayette Electrical Cooperative, Inc., 316 N.L.R.B.

1118 (1995).

In addition, the other Hawkins factors point against

Concordia's claimed exemption. Among other things, Concordia, like

privately owned utility companies, is subject to regulation by

Louisiana's Public Service Commission. See Cajun Elec. Power

Cooperative, Inc. v. Louisiana Public Service Comm'n, 544 So.2d

362, 365 (La.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 991 (1989). It is exempt

from Louisiana's Open Meetings law, which applies to public bodies,

Hunerjager v. Dixie Elec. Membership Corp., 434 So.2d 590, 591-92

(La. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 440 So.2d 149 (La. 1983), and its

power of eminent domain is coextensive with that possessed by

privately owned electrical utilities. See La. Rev. Stat. Ann.

§ 12:403(12). In short, these factors indicate that Louisiana

treats electrical cooperatives like investor-owned public

utilities, not as a political subdivision of the state.

ENFORCEMENT GRANTED.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.12
                                                                   -------------

                 TERMINATION OF STOCKHOLDERS' VOTING AGREEMENT
                 ---------------------------------------------


     The undersigned, Viacom Inc., a Delaware corporation (successor to CBS
Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation) (the "Purchaser"), ePresence, Inc., a
Massachusetts corporation (formerly Banyan Systems Incorporated, a Massachusetts
corporation) ("ePresence"), and Switchboard Incorporated, a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), hereby agree that the Stockholders' Voting Agreement dated as
of June 30, 1999 by and among the undersigned is hereby terminated in its
entirety and shall have no further force or effect, effective as of January 1,
2001.

     ePresence agrees that if ePresence transfers shares of capital stock of the
Company held by it such that , after giving effect to such transfer, ePresence's
indemnification obligations under Section 8 of the Common Stock and Warrant
Purchase Agreement by and among the undersigned dated as of June 1, 1999 (the
"Purchase Agreement") would have terminated as a result of such transfer
pursuant to Section 8.4(b)(y) of the Purchase Agreement, ePresence's
indemnification obligations pursuant to Section 8 shall nonetheless continue in
full force and effect in accordance with the terms of Section 8 and subject to
Section 8.4(b)(x), notwithstanding Section 8.4(b)(y).

     Executed as of January 1, 2001.

                                            VIACOM INC.

                                            By: /s/ Frederic G. Reynolds
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Name:  Frederic G. Reynolds
                                               Title: Executive Vice President &
                                                      Chief Financial Officer

                                            ePRESENCE, INC.

                                            By: /s/ Richard M. Spaulding
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Name:  Richard M. Spaulding
                                               Title: SVP & CFO

                                            SWITCHBOARD INCORPORATED

                                            By: /s/ Douglas Greenlaw
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Name:  Douglas Greenlaw
                                               Title: CEO
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Nancy Arlene FREEMAN, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11024 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Nancy Arlene Freeman, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Nancy Arlene Freeman has moved .for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Freeman has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate *154review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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.
snv3312012ex102




Exhibit 10.2


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL CORP. 
Board of Directors Compensation 
(Effective April 26, 2012)
 
	
						
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Cash Compensation
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Annual Board Retainer
	 
	$
	40,000
	

	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Annual Board Committee Member Retainers:
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Audit Committee
	 
	$
	15,000
	

	 

	Compensation Committee
	 
	$
	10,000
	

	 

	Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee
	 
	$
	10,000
	

	 

	Risk Committee
	 
	$
	10,000
	

	 

	Credit Committee*
	 
	$
	10,000
	

	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Annual Committee Chair Retainers:**
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Audit Committee
	 
	$
	15,000
	

	 

	Compensation Committee
	 
	$
	10,000
	

	 

	Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee
	 
	$
	10,000
	

	 

	Risk Committee
	 
	$
	10,000
	

	 

	Credit Committee*
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Annual Lead Director Retainer
	 
	$
	5,000
	

	 








 
	
			
	 
	 
	 

	*
	 
	Note:  The Credit Committee is a committee of the Synovus Bank Board of Directors.

	 
	 
	 

	**
	 
	Note: The committee chair will receive both an annual committee member retainer and an annual committee chair retainer.






  





	
						
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Equity Compensation
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	An award of 9,434 restricted stock units on each of April 25, 2012 and April 26, 2012, both of which vest immediately and are transferable only at the time of certain repayment of the aggregate obligations of the Company under the Troubled Asset Relief Program 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Director Stock Purchase Plan
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Annual maximum company cash contribution per director participant to company-sponsored open market stock purchase plan, with company’s contribution equal to 50% of director participant’s cash contribution, subject to annual maximum contribution limit by director of $20,000
	 
	$
	10,000
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, James R. Lavelle, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, Cotelligent, Inc.s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q /A for the period ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.



|                         |  |     |  |                                                  
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: September 21, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ James R. Lavelle                             
|                         |  |     |  | James R. Lavelle                                 
|                         |  |     |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer



23
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                           NATIONAL AUTO CREDIT, INC.
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, James J. McNamara, Chief Executive Officer of National Auto Credit, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Registrant"), in connection with the Registrant's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
do hereby represent, warrant and certify pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     (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
Registrant.

/s/ James J. McNamara
------------------------------
Name:  James J. McNamara
Title: Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)

Date:  December 12, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to National Auto Credit, Inc. and
will be retained by National Auto Credit, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```
#### PUAILOA and FANENE, Plaintiffs v. MAGALEI, Defendant

No. 6-1909

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Appellate Division [Land: Near Tafuna called “Lalofetau” by plaintiffs and “Vainiu” by defendant]

September 20, 1909

[Names of Judges unknown]

DECISION

This is an appeal from the decision of the High Court by the defendant in the case of Puailoa and Fanene versus Magalei.

The appeal presents:—

1. An expression of dissatisfaction with the decision of the High Court.

2. An expression of dissatisfaction with the evidence given by the people of Faleniu.

3. An effort to discredit the testimony of Siufanua by the statement “Siufanua was put in jail for speaking falsely and dodgingbefore the Court.”

4. An *ex parte*statement of the appellant’s own case.

After a careful review of the case the President of the

High Court finds:—

1. That the appellant offers no new matter for consideration.

2. That the appellant offers no evidence tending to discredit the testimony of the people of Faleniu, of Alia, or of Siufanua.

3. The statement that Siufanua was put in jail for *634“speaking falsely and dodging before the Court” is not borne out by the Court record, — it appears that Siufanua was committed for refusing to answer a question; the natural inference is that he was unwilling to make a true statement, but would not make a false statement. He subsequently answered the question and the truthfulness of his reply was not questioned by the appellant.

4. The petition for appeal presents merely an *ex parte*statement of the appellant’s own case.

It is the opinion of the President of the High Court that the case was properly tried and that the decree of the Court was in accordance with the law and the facts adduced.

The appeal is denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Johnson, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 659]

*582Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), rendered November 19, 2001, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, promoting prostitution in the second degree, and promoting prostitution in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, questions and remarks by the prosecutor during voir dire, opening, and cross-examination were fair comment on the evidence, or within the bounds of permissible rhetoric *(see People v Adamo,*309 AD2d 808 [2003]; *People v Mejias,*296 AD2d 583 [2002]; *People v Vasquez,*287 AD2d 584 [2001]; *People v Etoria,*266 AD2d 559 [1999]).

While the prosecutor’s references to religion during summation were improper, they were harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of the defendant’s guilt *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]; *People v Ivory,*307 AD2d 1000 [2003], lv *denied*100 NY2d 643 [2003]; *People v Anderson,*304 AD2d 450 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 592 [2003]; *People v Taylor,*162 AD2d 175 [1990]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention on appeal, the remainder of the prosecutor’s comments on summation were fair comment on the evidence or within the bounds of permissible rhetoric. Florio, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
 
Exhibit 99.4  Press Release



PRESS RELEASE
March 5, 1998

                            For further information contact:
                            David M. Bradley
                            Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
                            North Central Bancshares, Inc.
                            825 Central Avenue
                            Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501
                            515-576-7531

                   NORTH CENTRAL BANCSHARES, INC. ANNOUNCES
                           STOCK REPURCHASE PROGRAM

Fort Dodge, Iowa, March 5, 1998 - North Central Bancshares, Inc. (Nasdaq:
"FFFD") (the "Company"), the holding company for First Federal Savings Bank of
Fort Dodge, announced that it will commence a stock repurchase program beginning
on or about March 11, 1998. The program authorizes the Company to repurchase up
to five percent of its 3,266,483 outstanding shares of common stock during the
next twelve months. The repurchases will be made from time to time, in open
market transactions, at the discretion of management.

North Central Bancshares, Inc., with over $300 million in assets, is the holding
company for First Federal Savings Bank of Fort Dodge, a federally chartered
stock savings bank. First Federal is a community-oriented institution serving
Iowa through 7 full service locations in Fort Dodge, Nevada, Ames, Burlington
and Mt. Pleasant, Iowa. First Federal's deposits are insured by the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation.
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT - 99.2


                                  MOSSIMO, INC.

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mossimo, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Manuel Marrero, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ Manuel Marrero
--------------------------
Manuel Marrero
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2003
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6476 

To adjust the boundary of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National 

Heritage Area, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2023 

Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself and Mr. GARAMENDI) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To adjust the boundary of the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

Delta National Heritage Area, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA NATIONAL 

4 HERITAGE AREA. 

5 Section 6001(a)(4)(A) of the John D. Dingell, Jr. 

6 Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act (Public 

7 Law 116–9) is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing: ‘‘In addition, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 

9 National Heritage Area shall include the area depicted as 

10 ‘Rio Vista/Expansion Area’ on the map entitled ‘SacVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:46 Nov 28, 2023 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6476.IH H6476

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6476 IH

1 ramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area Pro2 posed Boundary Expansion’ and dated February 2021.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Raymond Alford BRADFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. OGBUEHI and Nietas, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15899

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 20, 2017

Raymond Alford Bradford, Pro Se

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Raymond Alford Bradford appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to Bradford’s ulcerative colitis and celiac disease. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation and application of the “three-strikes” rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), *Andrews v. Cervantes,*493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007), and for an abuse of discretion its denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, *O’Loughlin v. Doe,*920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We reverse and remand.

*635The district court abused its discretion in denying Bradford leave to proceed in forma pauperis because Bradford plausibly alleged that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); *see also Andrews,*493 F.3d at 1056-57 (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)); *see also Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1189-90 (9th Cir. 2015) (court should liberally construe prisoner’s “facial allegations” and determine if the complaint “makes a plausible allegation” of imminent danger).

We do not consider facts or documents not presented to the district court. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.