alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.B



CERTIFICATION



I, Michael R. Sayre, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report
based on such evaluation;



c) disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report); and



5. The registrants other certifying officers 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 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 data; 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 over financial reporting.



|                       
|-----------------------
|Date: August 13, 2004  
|                       
|/s/ Michael R. Sayre   
|Chief Financial Officer
BELL 
SPORTS                                                              CONFIDENTIAL

TERRY G. LEE

CHAIRMAN & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

January 28, 1998



Ms. Linda K. Bounds
Chief Financial Officer
Bell Sports
6350 San Ignacio
San Jose, CA 95119


Dear Linda:

         This  letter  will  confirm  our mutual  understanding  regarding  your
employment situation and employment agreement.

         You will continue to work in your current  capacity as Chief  Financial
Officer  until  December  31, 1998,  or such  earlier date as the Company  shall
determine.  The Company  will begin a search for a new CFO.  You will assist the
new CFO during a transition period, to be determined by the Company,  as long as
such transition period does not extend beyond December 31, 1998.

         On December 31, 1998, or such earlier date as determined by the Company
(as discussed above),  you will be Terminated  without Cause and become entitled
to the termination benefits set forth in Section 4(d)(i) through 4(d)(v) of your
Employment  Agreement  dated April 25, 1997.  All other terms and  conditions of
your   Employment   Agreement   shall   continue   in  full  force  and  effect.
Notwithstanding  the final date of termination,  you will be eligible to receive
your full year FY98 management bonus payment.

         Please  confirm your  understanding  of the above by signing  below and
returning one (1) copy to my attention.

Sincerely,

/s/ Terry G. Lee
Terry G. Lee
Chairman & CEO


ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED:

/s/ Linda Bounds                                       1/28/98
------------------------------                     --------------
Linda K. Bounds                                          Date
Senior Vice President & CFO

              15170 N. Hayden Rd. * Suite 1 * Scottsdale, AZ 85260
                    Ph: (602) 951-0033 * Fax: (602) 951-0511
#### Lucinda FRANCIS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SOUTH CENTRAL ACTION COUNCIL, INCORPORATED; doing business as Central Care Community Health Center, Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-20533 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 2, 2017

Don Tuan Nguyen, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Mark T. Phelps, Kingwood, TX, for Defendant-Appellee

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Lucinda Francis sued her former employer, Defendant-Appellee South Central Action Council, Incorporated, asserting claims arising from the termination of her employment. She alleged discrimination based on age in violation of the ADEA and on national origin in violation of Title VII. She also asserted a wrongful discharge claim under ERISA.

In its lengthy and exhaustive opinion and order granting South Central’s motion for summary judgment of dismissal, the district court patiently detailed the facts and law applicable to Francis’s claims, explaining the reasons why her action could not survive South Central’s summary judgment motion. We have carefully considered that opinion in light of the record on appeal, including the parties’ briefs and record excerpts, and we conclude that the district court’s judgment is not only free of error but imminently correct in all respects.' For us to write further would add nothing. We therefore affirm the district court’s Final Judgment of April 25, 2016 for the reasons expressed in that court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order of even date.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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,
#### Serajul HAQUE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee

2016-2429

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Decided: April 7, 2017

Serajul Haque, Milpitas, CA, pro se.

Heidi L. Osterhout, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Benjamin C. Mizer, Robert E. Kirsch-man, Jr., Patricia M. McCarthy.

Before Lourie, Reyna, and Wallach, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam.

Appellant Serajul Haque appeals an order of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims denying his motion to reopen an action that he filed in 2006. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the action in 2007 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, *see*Ap-pellee’s App. 1-3, and we affirmed the dismissal later that year, *see Haque v. United States,*236 Fed.Appx. 622, 624 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nine years later, Mr. Haque sought to reopen the final judgment issued in the action for various reasons, *see*Appellee’s App. 9-10, but the Court of Federal Claims denied Mr. Haque’s Motion because he “ha[d] not articulated any legitimate basis for re-opening his case,” *id.*at 11.

Rule 60(b) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) authorizes a party to seek relief from a final judgment in a number of situations. *See*RCFC 60(b)(l)-(6). Before the Court of Federal Claims, Mr. Haque did not identify the particular provision in RCFC 60(b) under which he seeks relief, *see*Appellee’s App. 9-10, and he does' not do so on appeal, *see generally*Appellant’s Br. As a result, we treat Mr. Haque’s Motion as a request to reopen pursuant to RCFC 60(b)(6) for “any other reason that justifies relief.”

“We review the [Court of Federal Claimsj’s decision on a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion.” *Mendez v. United States,*600 Fed.Appx. 731, 732-33 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). Having reviewed the briefs and the record before us, we conclude that the Court of Federal Claims did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Haque’s Motion. Moreover, during the pendency of the present appeal Mr. Haque has filed numerous miscellaneous papers in addition to his brief. Accordingly, we will not accept any further papers from Mr. Haque related to the reopening of his 2006 action. The Court of Federal Claims’s Order denying Mr. Haque’s Motion is

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10.2

 

CONVERSION NOTICE

 

March 29, 2012

 

Reference is made to the Credit Agreement dated as of October 9, 2007 (as modified, amended, supplemented or restated and in effect from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”) by and among, among others, Guitar Center, Inc. (the “Lead Borrower”), the guarantors party thereto from time to time, the lenders party thereto from time to time and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent (in such capacity, the “Administrative Agent”) and as collateral agent (in such capacity the “Collateral Agent”, and collectively with the Administrative Agent, the “Agents”) for its own benefit and the benefit of the other Secured Parties. Capitalized terms used herein and not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Credit Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 2.28 of the Credit Agreement, the undersigned Lender desires to convert its $20,000,000 Non-Extended Commitment into an Extended Commitment.

 

[  ] Check if Lender is a Reducing Lender.

 

 

	
 
    	
UPS   CAPITAL CORPORATION, as
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Lender
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:   
    	
 
    	
/s/   William H. Talbot
    
	
 
    	
Name:   
    	
William   H. Talbot
    
	
 
    	
Title:   
    	
Director   of Portfolio
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Accepted this 29th day
    	
 
    
	
of March, 2012
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
GUITAR CENTER, INC., as Lead Borrower
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
 
    	
/s/ Michael Pendleton
    	
 
    
	
Name: 
    	
Michael Pendleton
    	
 
    
	
Title: VP & General Counsel
#### INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA and Gibbs Corporation, Appellants, v. William M. O’KEEFFE, as Deputy Commissioner, United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Employees’ Compensation Sixth Compensation District, Regarding Award for James C. Buck, Appellee.

No. 22775.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 27, 1966.

*342B. T. Miller, Charles Daughtry Towers, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellants, Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones & Gay, Jacksonville, Fla., of counsel.

James H. Walsh, Asst. U. S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., Alfred H. Myers, Atty., Dept, of Labor, Washington, D. C., Edward F. Boardman, U. S. Atty., Thomas M. Baumer, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee, O’Keeffe, Charles Donahue, Sol. of Labor, U. S. Dept, of Labor, of counsel.

Before WISDOM, BELL and GOD-BOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal arises under the provisions of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as amended. 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq. The employee whose claim is the basis of the controversy suffered a back injury on October 9, 1961 when appellant insurance company was the insurance carrier for the employer. The issue before the Deputy Commissioner was whether the employee had sustained a new back injury on June 7, 1963 when the employer was covered by another insurance company. The case thus presented was a contest between the two insurance carriers.

The Deputy Commissioner found that no accident occurred on June- 7, 1963 within the meaning of the Act which caused or materially aggravated the employee’s disability. On the contrary, he found that the 1961 accident with its natural consequences, including surgery and alterations in gait and posture, was the sole responsible cause of the disability in question. This was the sole issue before the Deputy Commissioner, and on the appeal to the District Court.

The District Court entered summary judgment for the appellee upon a review of the record made on the administrative hearing. We affirm. The record supports the findings that the employee’s disability was attributable to his 1961 injury without the subsequent intervention of any new accident in 1963. The findings are neither unsupported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole or irrational. O’Keefe v. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates, Inc., 1965, 380 U.S. 359, 85 S.Ct. 1012, 13 L.Ed.2d 895; O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., 1951, 340 U.S. 504, 71 S.Ct. 470, 95 L.Ed. 483. The findings were not forbidden by the law, and the choice of the Deputy Commissioner as to the inference to be drawn from the basic facts have “ * * * substantial roots in the evidence * * * Cardillo v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 1947, 330 U.S. 469, 67 S.Ct. 801, 91 L.Ed. 1028.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

BOWFIN KEYCON HOLDINGS, LLC; CHIEF 

POWER FINANCE II, LLC; CHIEF POWER 

TRANSFER PARENT, LLC; KEYCON 

POWER HOLDINGS, LLC; GENON

HOLDINGS, INC.; PENNSYLVANIA COAL 

ALLIANCE; UNITED MINE WORKERS OF 

AMERICA; INTERNATIONAL 

BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL 

WORKERS; AND INTERNATIONAL 

BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, 

IRON SHIP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, 

FORGERS AND HELPERS

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND 

PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY BOARD

APPEAL OF: CONSTELLATION ENERGY 

CORPORATION AND CONSTELLATION 

ENERGY GENERATION, LLP, 

Possible Intervenors

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 84 MAP 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of October, 2022, the Notice of Appeal is QUASHED. 

See Pa.R.A.P. 501 (allowing an aggrieved party to file an appeal); In re Barnes 

Foundation, 871 A.2d 792, 795 (Pa. 2005) (holding that the failure to secure intervenor 

status forecloses the ability to file a cognizable appeal).

The Motion to Quash is DISMISSED as moot.
EX-4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 
 AMENDMENT NO. 16 
 TO THE 

AMENDED AND RESTATED LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT OF 
 FIRST POTOMAC REALTY INVESTMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 
 This Amendment No. 16
(the “Sixteenth Amendment”) to the Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement of First Potomac Realty Investment Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”) dated September 15, 2003 (the “Partnership
Agreement”), is entered into as of March 25, 2011, by First Potomac Realty Trust, the general partner (the “General Partner”) of the Partnership, and the Members of 840 First Street LLC, Stephen A. Goldberg, Brian L. Goldberg
Generational Trust, Lauren B. Goldberg Generational Trust and Stuart W. Goldberg Generational Trust (collectively, the “Contributors”). All capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned to them in
the Partnership Agreement. 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of that certain Contribution Agreement, dated as of
November 2, 2010 by and among 840 First Street LLC and the Partnership (the “Contribution Agreement”), on March 25, 2011 the Contributors contributed to the Partnership the property commonly known as 840 First Street, NE located
in Washington, DC, in exchange for limited partnership operating units in the Partnership; 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of
the Contribution Agreement, the Contributors are entitled to receive certain additional consideration in the form of additional limited partnership operating units in the Partnership; 

WHEREAS, it is desirable to amend Exhibit A to the Partnership Agreement to reflect the additional consideration to the Contributors;

 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
Partnership Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 
 Exhibit A to the Partnership Agreement is hereby amended by substituting
for the current version of such exhibit, a version in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A reflecting the additional consideration received by the Contributors. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing Sixteenth Amendment has been signed and delivered as of this 26th day of September, 2011, by the parties set forth above. 

 

			
	 FIRST POTOMAC REALTY TRUST,
 General Partner

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Joel F. Bonder

		 	    Joel F. Bonder
		 	    Executive Vice President
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                      Ending
Class            Interest        Principal         Losses             Balance
<S>               <C>               <C>              <C>                <C>
A1              5392565.5       23808308.2                0       984147862.14
A2             8363965.02      56989234.15                0      1720321917.55
A3              871867.47      26777028.54                0       167627692.58
A4             2104276.18                0                0          443364856
AIO               2400000                0                0                  0
B              2091649.68                0                0          278886624
M1             1844255.64                0                0          371848840
M2             1243975.76                0                0          232405520
OC                      0                0                0           58532001
R1                      0                0                0                  0
R2                      0                0                0                  0
R3                      0                0                0                  0
R4                      0                0                0                  0
R5                      0                0                0                  0
X                       0                0                0                  0


</TABLE>
#### Arthur B. Reddington, Appellant, *v.*Ætna Life Insurance Company, Respondent.

Argued January *13, 1943;*

decided March 4, 1943.

*623
      *Meyer Fix*and *Joseph P. Hogan*for appellant.

*Daniel E. Macken*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
#### IN RE: YAN SUI, Debtor. Yan Sui, Appellant, v. Richard Alan Marshack, Appellee.

No. 15-60065

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 18, 2017

*366Yan Sui, Pro Se

Chad V. Haes, Attorney, Marshack Hays LLP, Irvine, CA, for Appellee

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Chapter 7 debtor Yan Sui appeals pro se from an order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) dismissing as moot Sui’s appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order approving the sale of real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the BAP’s determination that a bankruptcy appeal is moot. *Nat'l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc. v. Stanley (In re Nat’l Mass Media Telecomm. Sys., Inc.),*152 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

• The BAP properly dismissed Sui’s appeal as moot because the property at issue was conveyed to a third party which prevented the BAP from granting effective relief. *See id.*at 1180-81 (affirming dismissal on the basis of mootness where the sale of the property to a non-party prevented the. court from granting effective relief).

Because Sui’s appeal is moot, we do not consider his arguments addressing the underlying merits of the appeal.

All pending requests and motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 224TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on August 6, 2014

, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Donald E. Carter, Appellant

V.

Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellee

No. 04-13-00424-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 1993EM500955

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the 

trial court is AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are taxed against the party that 

incurred them.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth 

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of 

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on February 12, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-13-00424-CV

Donald E. Carter

v.

Attorney General of the State of Texas

(NO. 1993EM500955 IN 224TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

REPORTER'S RECORD

CLERK'S RECORD

FILING

REPORTER'S RECORD

$0.00

$292.00

$175.00

$0.00

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

VICTORIA GWYNN

VICTORIA GWYNN

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF 

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and 

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for 

the Fourth District of Texas, this February 12, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
Exhibit 32.1  Pacific WebWorks, Inc.  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned officer of Pacific WebWorks, Inc. certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  • the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  • the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: September 24, 2007/s/ Kenneth W. Bell
Kenneth W. Bell
Chief Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer
**Exhibit 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES**

Beauty.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

Custom Nutrition Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

DS Pharmacy, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

de~luxe Distributors, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

International Vision Direct Ltd., a British Columbia, Canada company 

Medco Online Sales, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

RAD Online Sales, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Vision Direct Inc., a Texas corporation 

Salu, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

Salu Beauty, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

Salu Australia Pty Ltd., an Australia company 

Skincarestore Australia Pty Ltd., an Australia company 

Salu UK Ltd., a United Kingdom company 

Mission Scientific Skincare, Inc., a Delaware corporation