alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

Certification of CEO under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002

 

*I certify that this periodic reportcontaining the issuer’s financial statements fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in this periodicreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the issuer.*

 

 
|   | *By: /s/ Keith C. Robbins*           |              |
|--------|--------------------------------------|-------------------|
|   |                                 |
|   | *President, Chief Executive Officer* |
|   |                                 |
|   | *Date:*                              | *August 11, 2003* |   |
|        |                                      |                   |  |  |

 

----
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATIONS
     I, Curtis W. Mewbourne, Chief Executive Officer of Mewbourne DevelopmentCorporation, Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners 03-A, L.P.(the “Registrant”), certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mewbourne EnergyPartners 03-A, L.P.
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisquarterly report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant is made known to usparticularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;
b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to thefiling date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and
c. presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):

 

a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial data andhave identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknessesin internal controls; and
b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls; and
     6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated inthis quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internalcontrols or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controlssubsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any correctiveactions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.     Date:May 14, 2004.            /s/ Curtis W. Mewbourne   Curtis W. Mewbourne   Chief Executive Officer   Mewbourne Development Corporation,   Managing General Partner of the Registrant
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Theodore Harris, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 840]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Roger Hayes, J.), rendered December 9, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him to a term of 3 to 9 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to reduce the sentence imposed to a term of 2 to 6 years, and otherwise affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification.

*326We find the sentence imposed to be excessive to the extent indicated. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.
ACCEPTED

12-13-00041-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

2/16/2015 8:05:02 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 2/16/2015 8:05:02 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
EXHIBIT 31.1 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

  I, Curtis W. Mewbourne certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mewbourne Energy Partners 03-A, L.P.

2.       Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact 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 quarterlyreport, 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 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 disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting tobe designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour 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 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’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 overfinancial reporting; and 

5.       The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date:                May 16, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5513 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5513

 To amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to restore 
  the Medicare treatment of ownership of oxygen equipment to that in 
     effect before enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2006

Mr. Schwarz of Michigan (for himself, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Regula, 
Mr. Tiberi, Mr. Hobson, and Mr. Ryan of Ohio) introduced the following 
 bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 
  in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to restore 
  the Medicare treatment of ownership of oxygen equipment to that in 
     effect before enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Home Oxygen Patient Protection Act 
of 2006''.

SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF MEDICARE TREATMENT OF OWNERSHIP OF OXYGEN 
              EQUIPMENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 1834(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395m(a)(5)), as amended by section 5101(b) of the Deficit 
Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171), is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``(E), and (F)'' and 
        inserting ``and (E)''; and
            (2) by striking subparagraph (F).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on January 1, 2007, and shall apply to individuals 
receiving oxygen equipment before, on, or after December 31, 2005.
                                 <all>
```
Amendment 2 to Employment Agreement - Simpson



 EXHIBIT 10.5 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO  
 EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT 
 WHEREAS, XTO Energy, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (the “Company”) and Bob R. Simpson
(“Employee”) entered into an Employment Agreement, dated as of November 18, 2008, effective as of December 1, 2008, and subsequently amended on September 16, 2009 (the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18 of the Agreement, the Agreement may be amended by mutual written agreement signed by the Company
and Employee (the “Parties”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend certain provisions in the Agreement
as hereinafter set forth in this Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement (this “Amendment”). 
 NOW, THEREFORE,
for and in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and obligations contained herein, the Parties agree as follows: 
 1.
The second sentence of each of Section 11.1(a) and Section 11.1(g) is hereby amended by replacing the phrase “forty-five (45) days” with the phrase “five (5) days.” 
 2. The first sentence of Section 13.2 is hereby amended by replacing the phrase “an independent accounting firm retained by
Employer on the date of the Change in Control” with the phrase “the accounting firm acting as Employer’s independent auditor immediately prior to the Change in Control.” 
 3. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of Texas. 
 4. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall
constitute one and the same instrument. 
 5. Except as amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment No. 2 to the Employment Agreement to be executed and delivered on
December 13, 2009, to be effective immediately. 
  

			
	 XTO ENERGY INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Vaughn O. Vennerberg, II

		 	Name: Vaughn O. Vennerberg, II
		 	Title: President
	
	EMPLOYEE
	
	 /s/ Bob R. Simpson

	 Bob R. Simpson
EXHIBIT 23.2


Bateman & Co., Inc. P.C.



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended December 31, 1998, which report will upon its filing be
incorporated by reference into Greka Energy's Registration Statement on Form
S-3 (registration No. 333-60621), of Greka Energy Corporation, formerly known
as Horizontal Ventures, Inc. of our report dated April 14, 1998, on our audits
of the consolidated financial statements of Greka Energy Corporation, formerly
known as Petro Union, Inc. dba Horizontal Ventures, Inc. as of December 31,
1997 and for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 1997.


/s/ BATEMAN & CO., P.C.



Houston, Texas
April 15, 1999
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joanne Jennings, Appellant.

[720 NYS2d 4]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered February 26, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the first degree, attempted robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years on the attempted assault conviction, 4 to 8 years on the attempted robbery conviction and 4 to 8 years on the weapon possession conviction, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and ordering a new trial as to that count, and otherwise affirmed.

*285Given the vagueness of the People’s ballistics expert’s testimony with respect to the actual length of the barrel of the sawed-off shotgun, and the absence of any other specific testimony regarding the length of the barrel or the entire shotgun, aside from the complaining witness’s inexact demonstration, the trial court erred in refusing defendant’s specific request that the court include in the definition of a firearm the requirement that the jury must find the barrel to be shorter than 18 inches (Penal Law § 265.00 [3]). The People were required to establish that defendant possessed a loaded firearm, and since the evidence before the jury presented an issue of fact as to whether the weapon in question so qualified, the jury should have received a full definition of the term “firearm” *(see, People v Brigante,*186 AD2d 360, *lv denied*81 NY2d 761). Accordingly, defendant is entitled to a new trial on the weapon possession count only.

Defendant’s argument that on the instant facts the length requirement of Penal Law § 265.00 (3) also applied to the count charging attempted robbery in the first degree under a “display” theory is not preserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court properly charged that, in order to find defendant guilty of attempted robbery in the first degree, the jury was not required to find that defendant displayed an actual firearm during the commission of the crime, but only that she displayed what appeared to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, or other firearm (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]; *see also, People v Saez,*69 NY2d 802). Based upon the testimony of the complainant, it is clear that defendant displayed what appeared to the complainant to be a pistol. Further, the court’s failure to instruct the jury regarding the length requirement regarding shotgun barrels does not warrant reversal of defendant’s attempted robbery conviction since a shotgun is one of the listed weapons in Penal Law § 160.15 regardless of its length.

Defendant’s claim that the weapon possession count is duplicitous is unpreserved *(see, People v Bayne,*186 AD2d 419, *affd*82 NY2d 673) and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Andrias, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.
Exhibit 4.30
 Stephen Scott
Group General Counsel and Company Secretary
    
    (VODAFONE LOGO)
  
  CONFIRMATION OF INDEMNIFICATION OF DIRECTORS
   (i)
    
    The Company will provide funds to cover costs as incurred by you in defending legal
proceedings brought against you in your capacity as, or as a result of your being or having
been, a Director of the Company including criminal proceedings and proceedings brought by the
Company itself or an Associated Company;(ii)
    
    The Company will indemnify you in respect of any proceedings brought by third parties,
including both legal and financial costs of an adverse judgment brought against you in your
capacity as, or as a result of your being or having been, a Director of the Company; and(iii)
    
    The Company will indemnify you for liability incurred in connection with any application
made to a court for relief from liability, where the court grants such relief.
  (i)
    
    Unsuccessful defence of criminal proceedings, in which instance the Company would seek
reimbursement for any funds advanced;(ii)
    
    Unsuccessful defence of an action brought by the Company itself or an Associated Company, in
which instance the Company would seek reimbursement for any funds advanced;(iii)
    
    Fines imposed by regulatory bodies;(iv)
    
    Fines imposed in criminal proceedings; and
 Vodafone Group PlcCompany Secretarys & Legal Department
    
    Our ref: SRS/jeOne Kingdom Street, Paddington Central, London W2 6BY, England
    
    T +44 1635 673915T +44 (0)1635 33251 F +44 (0)1635 580857 www.vodafone.com
    
    F +44 1635 233743stephen.scott@vodafone.comRegistered Office: Vodafone House, The Connection, Newbury, Berkshire RG14 2FN,England. Registered in England No. 1833679




---



##### 



(v)
    
    Liability incurred in connection with any application under Section 661(3) or (4) of
the Companies Act 2006 (acquisition of shares by innocent nominee) or section 1157 of the
Companies Act 2006 (general power to grant relief in case of honest and reasonable conduct),
where the court refuses to grant you relief, and such refusal is final. (For reference, a
summary of these sections is appended to this letter).
         
 rd,
  2




---



##### 



Appendix
 Section 661(3) and (4) Companies Act 2006
  Section 1157 Companies Act 2006
   3
Mark K. JACKSON, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 106404

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: October 9, 2018

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Emily Sara Danker-Feldman, Office of the State Public Defender, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., and Mary K. Hoff, J.

*ORDER*

Mark K. Jackson ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's "Order Denying Post-Conviction Relief" ("Judgment") denying Movant's Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment or Sentence, which alleged a sentence in excess of the maximum authorized by law, without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 52 (Thursday, March 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 11763]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5915]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,325]


Amphenol Backplane Systems, Nashua, NH; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 20, 2009, in response to a 
petition filed on behalf of workers of Amphenol Backplane Systems, 
Nashua, New Hampshire.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Further 
investigation in this case would serve no purpose.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of March, 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E9-5915 Filed 3-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
First Amendment to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.25 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 This FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of the 31 day of
December, 2008, by and between Wynn Resorts, Limited (“Employer”) and Kim Sinatra (“Employee”). Capitalized terms that are not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement (as defined
below). 
 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, Employer and Employee have entered into that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of April 24, 2007 (the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, Employer is willing and Employee desires to modify certain terms and conditions to the Agreement as more fully set forth herein;

 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the respective representations, warranties, covenants and agreements
set forth in this Amendment, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 1. Termination of Affiliate Positions. Concurrent
with Employee’s resignation from Employer or upon expiration or termination of the Agreement, Employee agrees to resign, and shall be deemed to have resigned, all other positions and Board of Director memberships that Employee may have held
immediately prior to Employee’s resignation from Employer or expiration or termination of the Agreement. 
 2.
Section 409A Provision. Notwithstanding any provision of the Agreement to the contrary, if, at the time of Employee’s termination of employment with the Employer, he or she is a “specified employee” as defined in
Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”), and one or more of the payments or benefits received or to be received by Employee pursuant to the Agreement would constitute deferred compensation subject to Section 409A,
no such payment or benefit will be provided under the Agreement until the earlier of: (a) the date that is six (6) months following Employee’s termination of employment with the Employer or (b) the Employee’s death. The
provisions of this Section shall only apply to the extent required to avoid Employee’s incurrence of any penalty tax or interest under Section 409A of the Code or any regulations or Treasury guidance promulgated thereunder. In addition, if
any provision of the Agreement would cause Employee to incur any penalty tax or interest under Section 409A of the Code or any regulations or Treasury guidance promulgated thereunder, the Employer may reform such provision to maintain the
maximum extent practicable the original intent of the applicable provision without violating the provisions of Section 409A of the Code. 
 2. Other Provisions of Agreement. The parties acknowledge that the Agreement is being modified only as stated herein, and agree that nothing else in the Agreement shall be affected by this
Amendment. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the
date first written above. 
  

							
	WYNN RESORTS, LIMITED	 	 	 	EMPLOYEE
				
	By:	 	   /s/ Marc D. Schorr
	 		 	   /s/ Kim Sinatra

		 	  Marc D. Schorr	 		 	  Kim Sinatra
		 	  Chief Operating Officer