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

PRESIDENT CERTIFICATION

I, Richard
T. Miller, certify that:



| | (1) | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of TCW Direct Lending
VII LLC; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                              
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: April 28, 2020 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard T. Miller        
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Richard T. Miller            
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | President                    
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
No. 11-7629.

#### Arthur Singleton, Petitioner v. Willie Eagleton, Warden.

565 U.S. 1167, 132 S. Ct. 1116,

181 L. Ed. 2d 997,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 715.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 425 Fed. Appx. 228.
BEFORETHEUNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

AIRTRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. d/b/a AIRLINES FOR AMERICA, et al. Complainants, V. PORT OF PORTLAND, OREGON, Respondent. DocketNo. 16-16-04

MOTION OF THE PORT OF PORTLAND FORAN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REBUTTAL

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. 

### §§ 16.19 and 16.11(a), the Port of Portland ("Port"), the Respondent in the case, requests leave to file and hereby files this motion for an extension of time until Friday, June 24, 2016, inwhichto file a Rebuttal. In support ofthis motion, the Port states as follows: 1. On May 25, 2016, the Complainants filed with FAA and served on the Port their Reply. In accordance with Part 16 procedural rules, a "respondent may file a rebuttal within 1 0 days ofthe date ofservice ofcomplainant's reply." 14 C.P.R. 

### § 16.23(f). Thus, the procedural rules grantthe Port until June 6, 2016 (June 4 is a Saturday), to submit a Rebuttal. 2. The Port believes that an extension oftime is both necessary and appropriate "for
a fair and complete consideration of matters before the agency." 14 C.P.R. 

### § 16.11(a).Complainants' Reply introduces into the administrative record more than 300 pages of new evidence and testimonythat require careful review, consideration, and response. 3. On Friday, May 27, 2016, the undersigned contacted Roy Goldberg, counsel for Complainants, who advised that Complainants do not oppose this request. ReliefRequested For the foregoing reasons, the Port hereby requests an extension oftime in which it may file a Rebuttal until Friday, June 24, 2016.

May 27,2016 Respectfully submitted,



# ~QC1~~ Pablo 

### 0.Niiesch ...__ ___ _ Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP 1875 Eye St., N.W. Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 Email: pablo.nuesch@spiegelmcd.com Phone: 202-879-4000 Fax: 202-393-2866 Attorney for the PortofPortland

2Certificate ofService

Ihereby certifythat in accordance with 14 CFR 

### § § 16.15 and 16.13(h), I have today, the 2i11 day ofMay, 2016, causedthe foregoing Motion for Extension ofTimeto File Rebuttal to be served electronically, onthe following:

David Berg, Esq. Vice President & General Counsel DougMullen, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Air TransportAssociation ofAmerica, Inc. d/b/aAirlines for America 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 1300 Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 626-4234 Email: dberg@airlines.org dmullen@airlines.org Counsel for Complainants Roy Goldberg, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 ConnecticutAvenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 429-8028 Email: rgoldberg@steptoe.com

Pablo 

### 0.Ni.iesch
BEAMZ INTERACTIVE, INC.


NON-QUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


‘2009 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN’


 


As of February 23, 2009, Beamz Interactive, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, hereby adopts a non-qualified deferred compensation plan for Board members, consultants and various service providers,
qualifying them to be plan participants. In establishing this plan, Beamz Interactive, Inc. desires all provisions of Internal
Revenue Code Section 409A (IRC §409A) be met. Therefore,


 


The ‘Beamz Interactive, Inc. Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation
Plan’ sets forth the following:


 


		(1)	With respect to plan participants, plan distributions are made,



Upon the Death of the participant;


Upon the Disability of the participant;


Upon participant Separation from service;


Upon a participant’s Unforeseeable
emergency;


Upon a majority Change in ownership of
the company; or


At time(s) specified in writing.


		(2)	The plan does not permit the acceleration of the time or schedule of any participant payment under the plan. Any minor exceptions
to this requirement shall be provided in the Regulations.



		(3)	If a person has a right to elect deferral (be a participant), such election to defer compensation must be made not later than
the close of the taxable year preceding the taxable year in which the person earns the compensation, (i.e., a person having the
option of electing deferral of income earned in calendar year ending 2009, that person must exercise the election (be a participant
for that year) prior to December 31, 2008).



 


The name of the plan will be called the ‘ 2009 Deferred
Compensation Plan’.


 


The plan shall not be construed as a ‘qualified’
plan with any of its corresponding requirements. Further, the plan does not set aside specific monies or an escrow to retain participant’s
deferred compensation.


 


The plan will be amended and or revised in order to ensure current
compliance with IRC §409A.


 


The plan has been adopted by the Board of Beamz Interactive,
Inc. Directors and will remain in existence until the plan’s termination by the Board’s Directors.
No. 08-1394.

#### Jeffrey K. Skilling, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 934, 130 S. Ct. 1568,

176 L. Ed. 2d 107,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1266.

February 22, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to file a supplemental volume of the joint appendix under seal granted.
No. 09-8739.

#### Peter James Atherton, Petitioner v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor, et al.

559 U.S. 1039, 130 S. Ct. 2064,

176 L. Ed. 2d 418,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2776,

March 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.

Same case below, 386 U.S. App. D.C. 144, 567 F.3d 672.
# C_2016105EN.01000701.xml

| 19.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 105/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/7

---

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt

(2016/C 105/05)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons who are designated in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 (3) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt.

1

2

3

The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons designated in the abovementioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2011/172/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 should continue to apply to those persons.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 270/2011, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council before 15 December 2016, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s next review, in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 270/2011, of the list of designated persons.

---

(1)  OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 63.

1

(2)  OJ L 74, 19.3.2016, p. 40.

2

(3)  OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 4.

3

---
* 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

December 20, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-31021

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RONALD R. HARVEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:05-CR-60-ALL

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ronald R. Harvey appeals his guilty plea conviction and

sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He argues

that he was sentenced in violation of his plea agreement and that

the district court erred in upwardly departing.

For the first time on appeal, Harvey argues that the

terms of his plea agreement were violated by (1) the district

court’s upward departure from the advisory guideline range; (2) the

Government’s failure to move for a third acceptance-of-
2

responsibility credit; and (3) the district court’s failure to

offer him the opportunity to withdraw his plea. Affording his

argument plain error review, United States v. Munoz, 408 F.3d 222,

226 (5th Cir. 2005), we hold that the conduct of the district court

and the Government was entirely consistent with the parties’

reasonable understanding of the agreement. See United States v.

Wilder, 15 F.3d 1292, 1295 (5th Cir. 1994). Consequently, his

breach argument fails. 

Harvey additionally argues for the first time on appeal that

the district court’s upward departure was erroneous. Affording

this argument plain error review, United States v. Jones, 444 F.3d

430, 436 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2958 (2006), we hold

that Harvey has shown no error, plain or otherwise. To the extent

that Harvey seeks to challenge the district court’s refusal to

award him a two-level § 3E1.1 adjustment, that issue is

inadequately briefed and is therefore waived. United States v.

Thames, 214 F.3d 608, 611 n.3 (5th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed September 7, 2016.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-16-00761-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.E.A., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-15-14766-R

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justice Lang-Miers and Justice Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Stoddart

Before the Court is appellant’s August 29, 2016 unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. 

Appellant has informed the Court that she has settled her differences with appellee. 

Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P 42.1(a)(1).

160761F.P05

/Craig Stoddart/

CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF S.E.A., A CHILD, 

No. 05-16-00761-CV

On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-15-14766-R.

Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Lang-Miers 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee Jose L. Aguinaga recover his costs of this appeal from 

appellant Sara Aguinaga.

Judgment entered this 7th day of September, 2016.
No. 09-9158.

#### Carlos Demond Robinson, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1023, 130 S. Ct. 1926,

176 L. Ed. 2d 394,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2475.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 350 Fed. Appx. 837.
----

----

**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**

| (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 results of operations of                  the                  Company. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                            |                                       |                                      |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
| Date: February                    16, 2007 | By:                              | /s/ Kevin                    Pickard |
|                                            | Kevin                    Pickard           |
|                                            | Chief                    Financial Officer |
No. 09-7813.

#### Cherie Phillips, Petitioner v. Mike Murdock Evangelistic Association, et al.

559 U.S. 943, 130 S. Ct. 1509,

176 L. Ed. 2d 120,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1493.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 329 Fed. Appx. 775.
Colonel Robert L. Ward II

United States Army, (RET) 

is inducted into the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia Hall of Fame this sixteenth day of October 

2003 for his continuous outstanding mission support from 1992 through 1997. Robert Ward has 

distinguished himself as a visionary officer and a world class logistician who helped develop DSCP 

as a 21st century leader to support the men and women of our Armed Forces. While serving as the 

Director of the Clothing and Textile Factory and later Director of the Clothing and Textiles 

Directorate, he was recognized as a “superstar who has improved the wholesale system for years 

to come.” His most significant and enduring contribution was his management and development of 

people, especially during the difficult time of the factory closure. Many of the former manufacturing 

employees are employed at DSCP today because of Robert Ward’s vision for their future and that of 

the organization.

Hall of Fame Inductees Page 1 of 1

https://www.troopsupport.dla.mil/about_us/ward.htm 1/21/2016
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 21, 2019

No. 04-19-00424-CR

Steven ROBLES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR7479

Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on August 21, 2019.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of August, 2019.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
No. 09-8505.

#### Charles Jerome Adams, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 958, 130 S. Ct. 1557,

176 L. Ed. 2d 145,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1420.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 352 Fed. Appx. 825.
CONTRACT


EXHIBIT 10.1









41-600 Świętochłowice, Sztygarska 27 Street, Poland

DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT FOR SALE OF GOODS

F.P.H.U. "ADMAR", 41-600 Świętochłowice, Sztygarska 27 Street, Poland "Seller" has executed a Distribution Contract on March 15, 2012 with  Trance Global Entertainm​ent Group "Buyer" St. Kusocinskiego 3, Poland "Buyer"




According to the agreement, F.P.H.U "ADMAR" agrees to develop and manufacture and supply Trance Global Entertainm​ent Group Corp with inflatable products (Inflatable games, inflatable advertising, inflatable tents). "ADMAR" will develop, test, manufacture and supply the Products under the terms and conditions contained in the agreement. The material terms of the Contract are the following:




1. The Buyer sells in its own name and for its own account, in the Territory, the Products supplied by the Seller.

2. If  Seller is contacted by any person or entity inquiring about the purchase of Products made and designed specifically for Buyer, Seller shall refer such person or entity to Buyer for handling.

3. Total cost of the Contract amounts USD 1000000 (one million dollars US) and is defined on the grounds of the invoices or accounts, billed by the Seller.

4. The Buyer has 60 days after delivery to makes payment in the form of bank transfer on the account of the Seller after shipment is released from customs in Europe and Middle East. The payment for the Goods according to this Contract can be made in the form of prepayment on the basis of the invoices, presented by the Seller, or after receipt of the Goods by the Buyer. Convenient 

5. The payment for the Goods can be made in dollars US or Euro. If the Buyer makes the payment in Euro, the Parties conduct re-calculation on dollars US. The rate of the currency exchange is the National Bank of Poland official rate of the currency exchanges upon the date of payment.

6. Bank charges are at the expense of the Buyer.

7. The Contract becomes valid since the moment of signing till its complete fulfillment.

8. This contract can be terminated by either party by delivering a 30 day written termination notice.




Description of goods:

Inflatable Games:

All kind of inflatable designs where you can slide, box, bungee and jump. 

Dry or Water Slides - Big, Tall, Large or Small. 







Inflatable Advertising:

New way of advertising where you can put your logo on the inflatable ad or make an inflatable example of the product. Very convenient for trade shows, fare, outside/inside advertising and does not require professional insulation. 







Inflatable Tents: 

Is a new form of retail stores which you can move around  and it is very easy to assemble,  all you need is to inflate it. It is very convenient and do not require professional installation. It has lower weight, less volume and will cost less in transportation.










		
	Barbara Walaszek  - President (Buyer)      

      /S/ Barbara Walaszek                                                  

	Maruszewska Izabela  – President (Seller)

/S/ Maruszewska Izabela
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4768 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

777 Corporation Street in Beaver, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Robert Linn 

Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2006 

Ms. HART (for herself, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. PETERSON of 

Pennsylvania, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. SHERWOOD, Ms. 

SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania, Mr. DENT, Mr. PITTS, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. 

MURPHY, Mr. PLATTS, and Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 777 Corporation Street in Beaver, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Robert Linn Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ROBERT LINN MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILD4 ING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 777 Corporation Street in BeaVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:42 Feb 23, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4768.IH H4768

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4768 IH 

1 ver, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as the 

2 ‘‘Robert Linn Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Robert Linn Memorial 

7 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
No. 09-8537.

#### Pennina Ramirez, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 959, 130 S. Ct. 1559,

176 L. Ed. 2d 146,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1418.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 357 Fed. Appx. 873.
No. 11-7759.

#### Anthony Washington, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1169, 132 S. Ct. 1121,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1000,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 650.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 449 Fed. Appx. 624.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Quinton Cardiology Systems (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael
K. Matysik, Chief Financial 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)   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.

                                  By:   /s/ Michael K. Matysik
                                     -------------------------
                                     Michael K. Matysik
                                     Chief Financial Officer

            Date: July 30, 2004