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



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
       a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be 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 report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Thomas R. Venables

Thomas R. VenablesChief Executive Officer
Amendment No. 1 To the Rotech Healthcare Inc. Common Stock Option Plan



 Exhibit 4.4 
  

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE 
 ROTECH
HEALTHCARE INC. 
 COMMON STOCK OPTION PLAN 
  
 WHEREAS, Rotech Healthcare Inc. (the “Company”) has established and maintains the Rotech Healthcare
Inc. Common Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Plan, the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) may at any time amend the Plan, subject to certain limitations; 
  
 WHEREAS, the Board deems it to be in the best interests of the Company
to amend the Plan to increase the number of shares of common stock reserved for issuance under the Plan from three million twenty-five thousand (3,025,000) to four million twenty-five thousand (4,025,000); and 
  
 WHEREAS, on December 19, 2002, the Board approved such amendment to
the Plan and on May 20, 2003, the shareholders of the Company ratified and approved such amendment to the Plan; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of December 19, 2002 as follows: 
  
 FIRST: The first sentence of Section 3(a) of the Plan is hereby
amended to read in its entirety as follows: 
  
 “(a) Shares Subject to the Plan. Subject to adjustment as set forth in Section 3(b), the maximum number of Shares that may be issued or transferred pursuant to Options under this Plan shall be four million twenty-five thousand
(4,025,000) which may be authorized but unissued Shares or Shares held in the Company’s treasury, or a combination thereof.” 
  
 SECOND: Except to the extent hereinabove set forth, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect without change or modification. 
  
 [remainder of page intentionally left blank] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and as evidence of the adoption of the foregoing, the Company has caused this
Amendment No. 1 to be executed by a duly authorized officer this 20th day of May, 2003. 
  

	 	 	ROTECH HEALTHCARE INC.
			
	 	 	By:	 	 /S/    JANET L. ZIOMEK


	 	 	Name:	 	Janet L. Ziomek
	 	 	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer

  

 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),                as                applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and |
|--|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                                 |                                                                                 |                                              |
|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                 | PACIFIC              COAST              NATIONAL BANCORP                             |
|                            |                                                                            |                                         |
| Dated:              October 30, 2006 | By:                                                                        | /s/ Michael              S. Hahn   |
|                                 | Michael                S. HahnPresident                & Chief Operating Officer |
|                                 |                                                                                 |
|                                 |                                                             |                              |
|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                            |                                                        |                         |
| Dated:              October 30, 2006 | By:                                                    | /s/ Terry              Stalk |
|                                 | Terry                StalkChief                Financial Officer |
|                                 |                                                             |

----
Timothy Justin TACY, Sr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0442

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 09, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.

Denied.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6056

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JAMES TYSON, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Graham C. Mullen , Senior District Judge. ( 3:12

- cr - 00239

- GCM

- DCK

- 14 ; 3:18

- cv - 00175

- GCM )

Submitted : May 16, 2019 Decided: May 21, 2019

Before DIAZ and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. James Tyson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Tyson, Jr. , seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate o f appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322,
336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on pro cedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at
484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tyson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material s before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.2
 HORIZON LINES, INC.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Horizon Lines, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  /s/ MICHAEL T. AVARAMichael T. AvaraSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
Terrance T. MOSLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4598

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
# C_2017357EN.01000301.xml

| 23.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 13 July 2017 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Polfarmex Spółka Akcyjna, established in Kutno

(Case C-421/17)

(2017/C 357/03)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Appellant:

Respondent: Polfarmex Spółka Akcyjna, established in Kutno

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Does the transfer by a public limited company of immovable property to a shareholder in connection with the redemption of its shares constitute a transaction that is subject to value added tax in accordance with Article 2(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (1)

1

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 942 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 942

   To provide that the rule entitled ``Short-Term, Limited Duration 
               Insurance'' shall have no force or effect.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 24, 2021

  Ms. Baldwin (for herself, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Casey, Mr. Merkley, Mr. 
Brown, Mr. Warner, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Rosen, 
 Mr. Kaine, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Smith, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. 
 King, Mr. Bennet, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Reed, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Carper, 
  Mr. Wyden, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Booker, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. 
  Warren, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Tester, and Mr. Peters) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide that the rule entitled ``Short-Term, Limited Duration 
               Insurance'' shall have no force or effect.

    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 ``No Junk Plans Act''.

SEC. 2. SHORT-TERM LIMITED DURATION INSURANCE RULE PROHIBITION.

    The Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of the 
Treasury, and the Secretary of Labor may not take any action to 
implement, enforce, or otherwise give effect to the rule entitled 
``Short-Term, Limited Duration Insurance'' (83 Fed. Reg. 38212 (August 
3, 2018)), and the Secretaries may not promulgate any substantially 
similar rule.
                                 <all>
```
Don DU PERAULT, Appellant, v. Tatiana DU PERAULT, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1226

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 1, 2019]

Troy W. Klein of the Law Office of Troy W. Klein, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Mark C. A. Jennings of Mark C. A. Jennings & Associates LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, for appellee.

Metzger, Elizabeth A., Associate Judge.

Don Du Perault ("Husband") appeals the trial court's final judgment of dissolution. Specifically, the Husband appeals the court's value determination pertaining to certain marital assets within the final judgment. The Husband also appeals the attorneys' fee provision applicable to future enforcement actions contained within the final judgment. We affirm the court's determination regarding the value of certain assets without comment. However, we reverse the court's inclusion of an attorneys' fee provision within the final judgment for future enforcement actions.

After a final hearing on the Husband's petition for dissolution of marriage, the trial court entered its final judgment of *425dissolution. The judgment addressed attorneys' fees, noting each party was to "pay their own attorneys' fees incurred in this initial proceeding." The judgment went on to state "in the event either party seeks enforcement of this Final Judgment or Parenting Plan for the other party's failure to comply, the defaulting party shall be liable to the non-defaulting party for all fees and costs incurred as a result of the default and enforcement of same."

Section 61.16, Florida Statutes (2018), governs the issue of entitlement to attorney's fees in postdissolution enforcement proceedings. *Powers v. Powers* , 193 So.3d 1047, 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). Entitlement to fees, pursuant to section 61.16, requires inquiry into the parties' need and ability to pay. *Id.* Other relevant factors may be considered in assessing fees, however, "the financial resources of the parties are the primary factor to be considered." *Rosen v. Rosen* , 696 So.2d 697, 700 (Fla. 1997).

In this case, because the final judgment contained a fee provision for future enforcement actions which failed to account for the parties' need and ability to pay, we reverse and remand to the trial court for correction of the enforcement fee provision within the final judgment. *See**Griffin v. Griffin* , 276 So.2d 211, 212-13 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).

*Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion* .

Gerber, C.J., and Conner, J., concur.
C.B. v. A.G.

2160968

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 30, 2018

Affirmed.
IIA 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 34 

Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving 

the Coronavirus Immunization of School Students and Early Childhood 

Workers Amendment Act of 2021. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 19 (legislative day, JANUARY 18), 2022 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. LEE, and Mrs. BLACKBURN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council 

in approving the Coronavirus Immunization of School 

Students and Early Childhood Workers Amendment Act 

of 2021. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the Congress disapproves of the action of the District 

4 of Columbia Council described as follows: The Coronavirus 

5 Immunization of School Students and Early Childhood 

6 Workers Amendment Act of 2021 (D.C. Act 24–285), en7 acted by the District of Columbia Council on January 12, 

8 2022, and transmitted to Congress pursuant to section 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 34 IS 

1 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act on 

2 January 18, 2022. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
M.G. v. DEKALB COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2170247

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 19, 2018

Dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ABILENE DIVISION

ALENE BAGWELL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

) Civil Action No. 1:05-CV-125-C

Defendant. ) ECF

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS MATTER comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation filed

September 1, 2006 (Doc. 21). Neither party has filed objections within the period specified in 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

WHEREFORE, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is adopted by the court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed and

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a judgment in accordance with the terms of this order

shall be entered forthwith.

Dated September 22, 2006.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 1:05-cv-00125-C Document 22 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 110
Annique LESAGE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0480

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Case 3:05-cr-00240-P Document 1062 Filed 12/11/2009 Page 1 of 8
Case 3:05-cr-00240-P Document 1062 Filed 12/11/2009 Page 2 of 8
Case 3:05-cr-00240-P Document 1062 Filed 12/11/2009 Page 3 of 8
Case 3:05-cr-00240-P Document 1062 Filed 12/11/2009 Page 4 of 8
Case 3:05-cr-00240-P Document 1062 Filed 12/11/2009 Page 5 of 8
Case 3:05-cr-00240-P Document 1062 Filed 12/11/2009 Page 6 of 8
Case 3:05-cr-00240-P Document 1062 Filed 12/11/2009 Page 7 of 8
Case 3:05-cr-00240-P Document 1062 Filed 12/11/2009 Page 8 of 8
Case 3:05-cv-01420-M Document 4 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 9
Case 3:05-cv-01420-M Document 4 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 10
Isaac WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2028

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 21, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. Exhibit 4.5


EXHIBIT 4.5

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.

Image Acquisition Corp.

2401 Commerce Drive

Libertyville, Illinois  60048

Attention:  President

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Reference is made to that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 16, 2003 (the "Merger Agreement"), among Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), Image Acquisition Corp., an Indiana corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Acquisition"), Advanced Imaging Concepts, Inc., an Indiana corporation (the "Company"), and bCatalyst LLC, a Kentucky limited liability company, as representative of the Company's shareholders, pursuant to which (i) Acquisition will merge with and into the Company and the Company will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger") and (ii) certain options to purchase capital stock of the Company issued under the Advanced Imaging Concepts, Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan ("Company Stock Options") will be assumed by Parent and become and represent options ("Substitute Options") to purchase shares of common stock of Parent, par value $0.01 per share ("Parent Common Stock").

In consideration of the consideration that the undersigned holder of Company Stock Options is to receive in connection with the Merger and in order to induce Parent and Acquisition to consummate the Merger and the other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, the undersigned hereby covenants and agrees that, for a period of one year beginning on the Closing Date (as defined in the Merger Agreement), the undersigned will not, without the prior written consent of Parent, offer, sell, contract to sell, pledge or otherwise dispose of (or enter into any transaction which is designed to, or might reasonably be expected to, result in the disposition by the undersigned or any affiliate of the undersigned of), directly or indirectly, any shares of Parent Common Stock acquired by the undersigned in connection with the exercise of any Substitute Option.

If for any reason the Merger Agreement shall be terminated prior to the Closing Date, the agreement set forth above shall likewise be terminated.


                                                                                                                                                Sincerely,

                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                                Name:

                                                                                                                                                Address: