alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exh101.htm


    Exhibit
10.1

    


    


    Promissory Note To:  Bradley
W. Miller

    


    


    


    Promissory
Note

    


    USD
$30,000                                                                                     December
21, 2009

    


    


    For Value
received, (by way of a shareholders loan), Eastern World Solutions Inc.
(hereinafter referred to as the Company), a Nevada Corporation, promises to pay
to the order of Bradley W. Miller (hereinafter referred to as the lender), of
1716 S. Gary Ave., Tulsa, OK the sum of USD, Thirty Thousand Dollars (USD
$30,000.00), with simple interest at the rate of four percent annum, payable on
demand, but not before December 21, 2010, unless agreed to by a corporate
resolution of the Board of Directors of Eastern World Solutions
Inc.

    This note
shall inure to the benefit of the holder of this note, their respective
successors and assigns.

    It is
understood that this Note is unsecured.

    The
Company may prepay this Note without notice or penalty.

    The
lender may assign all of its right title and interest in, to and under this
promissory note.

    Should
legal proceedings be necessary to enforce this note, then the Company shall be
responsible and liable to the lender, for all costs incurred by the
lender.

    


    Signed
this 21st day of December in the year 2009 in Tulsa, OK.

    


    


    


    


    BRADLEY W.
MILLER

    


    Bradley
W. Miller

    President,
CEO and Directory
EX-33.7
(logo) WestLake
SETTLEMENT SERVICES

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

The Tax Outsourcing Service Agreement dated as of October 1, 2006 (together with
all amendments thereto, the "Agreement"), between Aurora Loan Services and
WestLake Settlement Services, LLC.

I, Debra D. Lewis, Director of WestLake Settlement Services, certify to Aurora
Loan Services, LLC ("Aurora"), with the knowledge and intent that it will rely
upon this certification, that:

(1) As of and for the year ended December 31, 2008, WestLake Settlement
Services, LLC has complied with the applicable servicing criteria set forth in
Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB applicable to WestLake (the "Applicable Servicing
Criteria"):

        1122(d)(4)(xi) Payments made on behalf of an obligor (such as tax or
        insurance payments) are made on or before the related penalty or
        expiration dates, as indicated on the appropriate bills or notices for
        such payments, provided that such support has been received by the
        servicer at least 30 calendar days prior to these dates, or such other
        number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

        1122(d)(4)(xii) Any late payment penalties in connection with any
        payment to be made on behalf of an obligor are paid from the servicer's
        funds and not charged to the obligor, unless the late payment was due
        to the obligor's error or omission.

(2) The transactions covered by this report include all loans in which WestLake
performs activities related to the Regulation AB criteria on behalf of Aurora.

(3) WestLake has complied, in all material respects, with the applicable
servicing criteria as of December 31, 2008 and for the Reporting Period with
respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

(4) Virchow, Krause & Company LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has
issued an attestation report on Aurora's assessment of compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria for the Reporting Period.

WESTLAKE SETTLEMENT SERVICES, LLC

/s/ Debra D. Lewis
Debra D. Lewis, Officer

Director of Operations
Title

March 20, 2009

1 First American Way, Westlake, TX, 76262
Mail Stop 6-4-100
**Exhibit 31.2****Certification**I, Leslye Grindle, C.F.O., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Southern Community Bancshares, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis 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 presentedin this quarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. [Intentionally omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
19

 
 b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: August 14, 2007             /s/ Leslye Grindle   Leslye Grindle, Sr. Vice President and   Chief Financial Officer  
20
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 03-2429

IN RE STONE & WEBSTER, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION

ADELE BRODY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly

situated; FRED DUBOIS, JR., individually and on behalf of all

others similarly situated; ALBERT A. BLANK, on behalf of himself

and all others similarly situated; DAVID B. EVERSON, on behalf of

himself and all others similarly situated; FANNY MANDELBAUM, on

behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; MARK HANSON,

on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

RAM TRUST SERVICES, INC., LENS INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LLC,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

STONE & WEBSTER, INC., H. KERNER SMITH, THOMAS LANGFORD,

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP,

Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA

The opinion of this court dated July 14, 2005, is amended as

follows:

On page 2, line 4, replace “appellant” with “appellants.”

On page 11, line 22, delete the comma between “We have

explained” and “that ‘[]under the . . . .”

On page 12, line 2, insert a space between “§” and “78u4(b)(2).”

On page 14, line 17, delete “two” between “as part of GAAP,”

and “accounting methods.”
On page 20, line 15, insert “the” between “complied

sufficiently with” and “PSLRA’s requirement.”

On page 20, line 18, insert “the” between “previously stated

that” and “PSLRA does not.”

On page 21, line 7, insert “the” between “requirement of”

and “PSLRA.”

On page 27, line 6, insert “a” between “imposes no burden

on” and “plaintiff to prove.”

On page 42, line 22, replace “Any” with “any” following

“(2).”

On page 42, line 24, replace “Because” with “because”

following “(3).”

On page 46, line 10, insert “to be” between “may appear” and

“the inevitable.”

On page 50, line 22, replace “defendant’s” with “defendants’

” between “in considering the” and “motion to dismiss.”

On page 54, line 16, replace “superceded” with “superseded”

before “by statute on other grounds.”

On page 56, line 9, replace “PWC” with “PwC” between “that”

and “audits were performed.”

On page 57, line 11, insert “the” between “clarity-and-basis

test of” and “PSLRA.”

On page 59, line 1, replace “allegations” with “allegation”

between “The final” and “on which plaintiffs rely.”
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

November 2, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00631

- CV

IN RE Cynthia S. HALE

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

CORRECTED ORDER

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

Irene Rios , Justice

On September 29, 2017, Relator filed an emergency motion for stay. On October 10, 2017, Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. In the body of her petition, Relator

identifies a minor by name. In addition, the appendices to Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency stay include unredacted documents identifying the minors by name. Texas R ule of Appellate Procedure 9.9(b) requires sensitive data be redacted

. Sensitive data includes the “name of any person who was a minor when the underlying suit was

filed.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 9.9(a)(3). Sensitive data must be redacted as set out by Texas Ru le of Appellate Procedure 9.9(c). Because Relator failed to comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9. 9 , we ORDER Relator’s petition and motion for temporary relief

STRICKEN . Relator may file an amended petition and motion, sole ly for the purpose of redacting all sensitive data

, no later than November 6, 2017.

On October 27, 2017, Real Party in Interest filed a response to the petition for writ of mandamus. The appendix to the response includes unredacted documents identifyin g the minors by name. Because Real Party in Interest failed to comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9. 9 , we ORDER Real Party in Interest’s response to Relator’s petition for

writ of mandamus STRICKEN

. Real Party in Interest may file an amen ded response, solely for the purpose of redacting all sensitive data, within two days of Relator filing her redacted petition for writ of mandamus and motion for stay.

If all parties timely file redacted pleadings and appendices a s provided by this order , oral argument in this case will remain scheduled for November 29, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.

1 T his proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2017

- CI

- 16203 , styled In the Matter of the Marriage of Jennifer Hall and Cynthia Suzanne Hale, In the Interest of S.Z.H., R.A.H.

, and S.G.H., Children , pending in the 57th Judicial District

Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Stephani A. Walsh presiding.It is so ORDERED on November 2, 2017

.



### PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO : ___________________________ Keith E. Hottle,

Clerk of Court
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 0506

_____________________________
A RNOLD H. T HOMAS , Appellant,

v.

S COTT E. G RUBER , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County

. James Daniel , Judge

. July 30, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. Noe v. Noe , 217 So. 3d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

L EWIS , M AKAR , and B ILBREY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Arnold H. Thomas, pro se
, Appellant.

Scott E. Gruber, pro se
, Appellee.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 22

- 0391

_____________________________
W ILLIAM G UILFORD , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for Clay County

. Timothy R. Collins , Judge

. September 9, 2022

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED

.
L EWIS , M AKAR , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

William Guilford, pro se
, Appellant.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Multi-Lingual Initiatives Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, May 14, 2009. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marisa Knispel at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3557. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Multi-Lingual Initiatives Issue Committee will be held Thursday, May 14, 2009, at 2 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Marisa Knispel. For more information please contact Ms. Knispel at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3557, or write TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or contact us at the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org*.                 

The agenda will include various IRS Issues. 

 Dated: March 17, 2009. 

Shawn F. Collins, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. E9-6357 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Eddie STRONG, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105928

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: January 8, 2019

Mary S. Choi, 1010 Market St. Ste. 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Movant/Appellant.

Daniel N. McPherson, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Respondent/Respondent.

Before Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., and Colleen Dolan, J.

*254***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Strong ("Movant") appeals the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief and finding that Movant failed to demonstrate that his plea counsel was ineffective. Finding that Movant has failed to demonstrate that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing, we affirm the judgment of the motion court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1007

CHISSE TOURE,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A70-888-811)

Submitted: June 9, 2004 Decided: June 25, 2004

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,

Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney

General, Mark C. Walters, Assistant Director, Victor M. Lawrence,

OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Chisse Toure, a native of the Ivory Coast and a citizen

of Mali, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the

Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision to deny asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. For

the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review.

Toure disputes the IJ’s conclusion that she was firmly

resettled in the Ivory Coast and lacked a well-founded fear of

persecution in Mali. To obtain reversal of a determination denying

eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he

presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could

fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v.

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the

evidence of record and conclude that Toure fails to show that the

evidence compels a contrary result. See Mussie v. INS, 172 F.3d

329, 331-32 (4th Cir. 1999); Huaman-Cornelio v. Board of

Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that she seeks.

Additionally, we reject Toure’s contention that the

Board’s summary affirmance of the IJ’s decision violated her rights

under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See Blanco de

Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 272, 280-83 (4th Cir. 2004). 
- 3 -

We therefore deny the petition for review. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 32.1



                            CERTIFICATION
         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
              SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of Easton Technologies Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Jianjun Zhang, President 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, to my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the
Company.


Date: July 23, 2004

/s/ Jianjun Zhang
---------------------------------------------
Jianjun Zhang, President
(principal executive officer and principal
 accounting officer)
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





In connection with the Annual Report of Texas Rare Earth Resources Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mike McDonald, 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 results of operations of the Company.





Date: December 29, 2014









By:/s/ Mike McDonald


Mike McDonald


Chief Financial Officer


Principal Financial and Accounting Officer








The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
ex10_24.htm


    Exhibit
10.24

     

    Escalade,
Incorporated

    Schedule
of Executive Officer Compensation

     

    Compensation
for the executive officers of Escalade, Incorporated consists of a base salary,
bonuses and long-term incentives in the form of stock option grants or
restricted stock unit grants.

     

    Base
Salary

    In
general, base salaries are set at the beginning of each year based upon the
Company’s income level generated in the prior year, any changes in the level of
responsibility and the subjective individual performance review conducted by the
Company’s Compensation Committee. The 2010 base salaries for the Companies
executive officers are as follows:

     

    
      	
              Name

            	 	
              Position

            	 	
              Annual
      Base Salary

            	 
	
              Robert
      Griffin (a)

            	 	
              Chairman
      of the Board

            	 	$	50,580	 
	
              Robert
      J. Keller (a)

            	 	
              President
      and Chief Executive Officer

            	 	$	270,000	 
	
              Deborah
      J. Meinert

            	 	
              VP
      Finance, CFO

            	 	$	132,000	 


    

     

    (a)
Messrs Griffin and Keller are entitled to receive $56,200 and $300,000
respectively but have voluntarily agreed to a 10% reduction in each of these
amounts.

     

    Bonuses

    Each year
the Company’s Compensation Committee establishes targeted bonuses for its key
executives based on target performance levels for the Company. Performance
targets are based on achieving pre-tax income goals in relation to invested
capital which is defined as beginning shareholder equity plus average bank debt
outstanding. Based on actual results achieved, a bonus pool is accrued for use
in paying bonuses. There are no pre-defined methods for allocating the bonus
pool to any of the key executives; allocation and payment is entirely at the
discretion of the Compensation Committee and Board of Directors. Due to economic
pressures on earnings, the Company paid no bonuses in 2009.

     

    Long-Term
Incentives

    Under the
terms of the Escalade, Incorporated 2007 Incentive Plan, executive officers of
the Company are eligible to receive long term incentive compensation in various
forms including stock options and restricted stock units. The Company’s
Compensation Committee has full discretion over the form, amount and timing of
these grants which historically have been annual grants. In its determination of
annul grants, the Compensation Committee considers performance of both the
individual and the Company.

     

    Additional
Benefits

    Executive
officers are eligible to participate in the Company’s 401(k) retirement plan and
receive Company matching contributions in accordance with the plan terms. The
Company also pays group term life insurance benefits on behalf of executive
officers. The Company’s Chairman of the Board participates in a salary deferral
plan that earns interest on undistributed amounts at the rate of 9% per
annum.