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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Alfred J. Amoroso, certify that:



|Date: March 29, 2004                                      | 
|--------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/ALFRED J. AMOROSOPresident and Chief Executive Officer | 

---

Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
John W. Riley, certify that:



Date:
March 29, 2004

/s/JOHN W. RILEYVice President and Chief Financial Officer


---

QuickLinks
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

This Third Amendment (this "Third Amendment"), being made and effective as of December 15, 2009, is to the Employment Agreement dated December 30, 2005, by and between Luca C. Naccarato (the "Executive") and SGS International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), as amended by an Amendment dated as of January 15, 2006 and a Second Amendment dated as of August 9, 2006 (as heretofore amended, the "Agreement").  All capitalized terms which are used in this Third Amendment and are not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement.

1.Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting such section in its entirety and replacing it with the following:


Employment Term.  The "Employment Term" hereunder shall commence on the date set forth above and shall continue in full force and effect until the fifth (5th) anniversary of the date hereof unless terminated earlier pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.  For avoidance of doubt, such fifth anniversary shall occur on December 30, 2010.  The Employment Term will renew hereunder automatically for successive one-year periods unless either party gives written notice to the other not less than ninety (90) days prior to the end of the Employment Term hereof (or any subsequent anniversary, as the case may be) that such party does not wish the Employment Term to be so extended, and under such circumstances, the Employment Term and this Agreement will terminate by its terms, and without liability to either party, on the fifth anniversary of the date hereof (or such subsequent anniversary, as the case may be).





2.All other provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.

3.This Third Amendment may be executed in counterparts each of which shall be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute a single instrument.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Third Amendment as of the date first above written.

 
SGS International, Inc.

 

By:/s/ Benjamin F. Harmon, IV

     Benjamin F. Harmon, IV

     Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

 

Executive


 

/s/ Luca C. Naccarato

Luca C. Naccarato
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001030418
<NAME>                        BIONX IMPLANTS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1
<CASH>                                            17,069
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      4,087
<ALLOWANCES>                                         150
<INVENTORY>                                        6,339
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  28,584
<PP&E>                                             2,864
<DEPRECIATION>                                      (646)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    34,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              4,152
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                              17
<OTHER-SE>                                        30,273
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      34,533
<SALES>                                           14,781
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  15,071
<CGS>                                              3,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     10,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      93
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  (822)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    1,720
<INCOME-TAX>                                         529
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                1,191
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       1,191
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .13
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is not to be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report
of UTStarcom, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").

In
connection with the Report, we, Hong Liang Lu and Francis P. Barton, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes
Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Dated:
June 26, 2006

|By: |  | /s/HONG LIANG LUName: Hong Liang Lu
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|By: |  | /s/FRANCIS P. BARTONName: Francis P. Barton                                      |  | 
|    |  | Title: Executive Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer          

---



QuickLinks
##### 



Exhibit 14.13 Consent of Independent Accountants To the Board of Directors of
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce S.A. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (File
Nos. 333-110867; 333-10867-01) of CVRD and Vale Overseas of our report dated January
12th, 2004 on the financial statements of Valesul Alumínio S.A., which appear in the
Annual Report on Form 20-F of CVRD and Vale Overseas for the year ended December 31st,
2004. /s/ Deloitte Touche TohmatsuDELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU
 May 30, 2005
Exhibit 32.1

THANKSGIVING COFFEE COMPANY, INC.

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 Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ Sam KraynekSam Kraynek Chief Executive OfficerMarch 31, 2011
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 808 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow for prepayment of repayment 

contracts between the United States and the Uintah Water Conservancy 

District. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 13, 2011 

Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. LEE) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow for prepayment of repayment contracts between the United States 

and the Uintah Water Conservancy District. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PREPAYMENT OF CERTAIN REPAYMENT CON4 TRACTS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND 

5 THE UINTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DIS6 TRICT. 

7 The Secretary of the Interior shall allow for prepay8 ment of the repayment contract no. 6–05–01–00143 be9 tween the United States and the Uintah Water ConserVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:40 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S808.IS S808

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 808 IS

1 vancy District dated June 3, 1976, and supplemented and 

2 amended on November 1, 1985, and on December 30, 

3 1992, providing for repayment of municipal and industrial 

4 water delivery facilities for which repayment is provided 

5 pursuant to such contract, under terms and conditions 

6 similar to those used in implementing section 210 of the 

7 Central Utah Project Completion Act (Public Law 102– 

8 575), as amended. The prepayment— 

9 (1) shall result in the United States recovering 

10 the net present value of all repayment streams that 

11 would have been payable to the United States if this 

12 Act was not in effect; 

13 (2) may be provided in several installments to 

14 reflect substantial completion of the delivery facili15 ties being prepaid, and any increase in the repay16 ment obligation resulting from delivery of water in 

17 addition to the water being delivered under this con18 tract as of the date of enactment of this Act; 

19 (3) shall be adjusted to conform to a final cost 

20 allocation including costs incurred by the Bureau of 

21 Reclamation, but unallocated as of the date of the 

22 enactment of this Act that are allocable to the water 

23 delivered under this contract; 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 808 IS

1 (4) may not be adjusted on the basis of the 

2 type of prepayment financing used by the District; 

3 and 

4 (5) shall be made such that total repayment is 

5 made not later than September 30, 2022. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 958 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the program of 

payments to children’s hospitals that operate graduate medical education 

programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2011 

Mr. CASEY (for himself, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. 

KERRY, Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, and Mr. ROBERTS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the 

program of payments to children’s hospitals that operate 

graduate medical education programs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Children’s Hospital 

5 GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2011’’. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 958 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROGRAM OF PAYMENTS TO CHILDREN’S HOS2 PITALS THAT OPERATE GRADUATE MEDICAL 

3 EDUCATION PROGRAMS. 

4 Section 340E of the Public Health Service Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 256e) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘2011’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘2016’’; 

8 (2) in subsection (b)(3)(D)— 

9 (A) in the heading, by striking ‘‘REPORT’’ 

10 and inserting ‘‘REPORTS’’; and 

11 (B) in the matter preceding clause (i), by 

12 inserting ‘‘and not later than the end of fiscal 

13 year 2015,’’ after ‘‘2011,’’; and 

14 (3) in subsection (f)— 

15 (A) in paragraph (1)(A)(iv), by striking 

16 ‘‘2011’’ and inserting ‘‘2016’’; and 

17 (B) in paragraph (2)(D), by striking 

18 ‘‘2011’’ and inserting ‘‘2016’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB OF
AUDIOHIGHWAY.COM FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          21,422
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      243
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,695
<PP&E>                                             485
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,435
<BONDS>                                            153
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,171
<OTHER-SE>                                    (14,773)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,180
<SALES>                                            165
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   165
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,001
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 418
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,256)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,256)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,256)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.49)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2019406EN.01000801.xml

| 2.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/8

---

Appeal brought on 10 April 2019 by Apple Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 31 January 2019 in Case T-215/17: Pear Technologies v EUIPO - Apple (PEAR)

(Case C-295/19 P)

(2019/C 406/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Apple Inc. (represented by: G. Tritton and J. Muir Wood, Barristers, instructed by J. Olsen and P. Andreottola, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: Pear Technologies Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 1 October 2019 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded and that Apple Inc. shall bear its own costs.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 11

                          COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         Three Months Ended          Nine Months Ended
                                              July 31,                   July 31, 
                                      -----------------------     ------------------------
                                         1996         1997            1996         1997
                                      ---------    ----------     ----------    ----------
<S>                                   <C>          <C>            <C>           <C>
Earnings (loss) per share:
Weighted average number 
  of shares outstanding               4,000,000     5,000,000      4,000,000     4,373,626
Common equivalent shares from
  options issued during the
  twelve month period to the
  filing of the SB-2 (using
 the treasury stock method)              50,150             -         50,150        31,413
Weighted average number of 
  common stock equivalent
  shares from options and
  warrants (using the
  treasury stock method)                      -        93,226              -        93,227
                                      ---------    ----------     ----------    ----------
Total                                 4,050,150     5,093,226      4,050,150     4,498,266
                                      ---------    ----------     ----------    ----------
                                      ---------    ----------     ----------    ----------

Net income (loss)                     ($103,260)   $   99,889     $  812,666    $  775,124
                                      ---------    ----------     ----------    ----------
Earnings (loss) per share                ($0.03)        $0.02          $0.20         $0.17
                                      ---------    ----------     ----------    ----------
                                      ---------    ----------     ----------    ----------
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          24,048
<SECURITIES>                                    37,555
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,284
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,321
<INVENTORY>                                      1,079
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,307
<PP&E>                                          32,482
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,730
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 109,797
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,012
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           343
<OTHER-SE>                                      91,807
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   109,797
<SALES>                                         63,803
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,549
<CGS>                                            8,458
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,394
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,089
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,420
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,707
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,713
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,713
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .49


</TABLE>
#### BRIETTE, Respondent, v. RUTLAND R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Ezra Briette against the Rut-land -Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Jackson, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), rendered November 17,1982, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

*832Judgment affirmed.

The degree of permissible police action is directly proportionate to the degree of objectively credible information possessed by the police *(People v Scruggs,*90 AD2d 520). The common-law right to inquire is activated by a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and entitles a police officer to attempt to obtain explanatory information, by reasonable means not rising to the level of an actual seizure *(People v Cantor,*36 NY2d 106, 114; *People v Rosemond,*26 NY2d 101; *People v Rivera,*14 NY2d 441, 446, *cert denied*379 US 978). In the instant case, the arresting officer saw defendant leaving the exact location at which a dispute with a firearm had been reported. It was reasonable for the officer to assume that defendant might have witnessed the dispute or that he might be able to provide some pertinent information. Having requested defendant to stop with this purpose in mind, the officer saw the outline of a gun in defendant’s right front pocket as he approached him.

The yardstick by which the propriety of a stop and frisk is to be measured is set forth as follows: “A frisk requires reliable knowledge of facts providing a reasonable basis for suspecting that the individual to be subjected to that intrusion is armed and may be dangerous” *(People v Russ,*61 NY2d 693, 695). At bar, the arresting officer, after observing the outline of a gun in defendant’s right front trouser pocket, possessed a reasonable basis for suspecting that the defendant was armed and dangerous *(People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761). Moreover, based upon the record, it cannot be said that the suppression court erred in crediting the arresting officer’s testimony. It should be noted that “much weight must be accorded the determination of the suppression court” *(People v Prochilo, supra,*p 761).

The defendant further contends that Criminal Term erred in accepting his plea of guilty by failing to inquire into the factual circumstances upon which the crime charged was predicated. The defendant did not raise his objections to the adequacy of the plea allocution to the court of first instance and thus failed as a matter of law to preserve his claim for appellate review *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Pascale,*48 NY2d 997). Lazer, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.
*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."

Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60338 

Summary Calendar

__________________

JANE DOE I,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM T. FERRELL, JR.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:94-CV-85

_________________________________________________________________

December 15, 1995

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The appellant appeals from the district court's order granting

the defendant's motion for summary judgment. She argues that there

remained genuine issues of material fact concerning her claims

against the defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under Mississippi

tort law. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for

essentially the reasons given by the district court. Doe v.

Ferrell, No. 5:94-CV-85 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 28, 1995).

A F F I R M E D.