alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Remi Kwas, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 258]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered June 29, 2010, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the jury’s determination that he failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was acting “under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse” when he stabbed and killed his sister’s boyfriend was not against the weight of the evidence (Penal Law § 125.25 [1] [a]; *see*Penal Law § 125.20 [2]; *People v Roche,*98 NY2d 70, 75-76 [2002]; *People v Casassa,*49 NY2d 668, 675 [1980], *cert denied*449 US 842 [1980]; *People v Azaz,*41 AD3d 610 [2007], *affd*10 NY3d 873 [2008]; *People v Edwards,*29 AD3d 710 [2006]; *People v George,*7 AD3d 810 [2004]). “[W]here conflicting expert testimony is presented, the question of whether or not the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the commission of the crime is primarily for the trier of fact, who has the right to accept or reject the opinion of any expert” *(People v Hernandez,*46 AD3d 574, 576 [2007] [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]; *see People v Ayala,*221 AD2d 457 [1995]). Here, considering the evidence presented, including the conflicting expert testimony, the jury could have

*878reasonably concluded that the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime were not indicative of a loss of self-control or similar mental infirmity *(see People v Roche,*98 NY2d at 75-76; *People v Azaz,*41 AD3d at 610; *People v Palacios,*302 AD2d 540, 541 [2003]). Accordingly, there is no basis to disturb the jury’s rejection of the defendant’s affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.
Document

Exhibit 10.iii.a
THE MOSAIC COMPANY
SUMMARY OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
Non-Employee Directors
Effective May 20, 2021, the director compensation policy adopted by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of The Mosaic Company (“Mosaic”) provides for cash compensation to non-employee directors as follows:
•an annual cash retainer of $180,000 to our Chairman of the Board and $90,000 to each other director;
•an annual cash retainer of $24,000 to the Chair of our Audit Committee;
•an annual cash retainer of $20,000 to the Chair of our Compensation Committee; and
•an annual cash retainer of $15,000 to each director who serves as Chair of our Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee or Environmental, Health, Safety and Sustainable Development Committee.
In addition, policy adopted by the Board provides for an annual grant of restricted stock units to be settled in Mosaic common stock, valued at $260,000 for the Chairman of the Board and $155,000 for each other non-employee director.  Mosaic reimburses directors for travel and business expenses incurred in connection with meeting attendance.  Mosaic does not pay meeting fees or provide any perquisites to our non-employee directors except for reimbursement of travel expenses when spouses attend Board functions.
Employee Directors
Directors who are employees receive no director fees or other separate compensation for service on the Board or any committee of the Board for the period during which they are employees.
Exhibit
        13.1
 
 Credicorp
        Ltd.
 Certification
        Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 (18
        U.S.C. Section 1350)
 
 Pursuant
        to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
        U.S.C.
        Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies as
        follows:
 
 1.  I
        am the
        Chairman Executive Officer of Credicorp Ltd. (the “Company”).
 
 2.  To
        my
        knowledge:
 
 (A)  The
        Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006
        accompanying this Certification, in the form filed with the Securities and
        Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of
        Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (B)  The
        information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
        financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated:
                        June 28, 2007/s/
                          DIONISIO ROMEROName:
                    Dionisio RomeroTitle:
                          Chief Executive
                          Officer
# C_2020226EN.01001201.xml

| 9.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/12

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2020/C 226/08)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 3 April 2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 84974 |
| Decision No | 033/20/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | COVID-19 compensation scheme for the cancellation or postponement of sports or volunteer events |
| Legal basis | Regulation on a temporary compensation scheme for organisers in the sports and volunteer sectors for cancellations, closings or postponements of events as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | The objective of the scheme is to compensate for losses or additional costs caused by the cancellation or postponement of sports or volunteer events to combat the spread of the COVID-19 virus. |
| Form of aid | Grants |
| Budget | NOK 700 million |
| Intensity | 100 % |
| Duration | 14 April to 31 May 2020 |
| Economic sectors | Sport and voluntary sector |
| Name and address of the granting authority | The Norwegian Gaming and Foundation Authority
  P.O.Box 800
  NO-6805 Førde
  NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

3 April 2020

Case No

84974

Decision No

033/20/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

COVID-19 compensation scheme for the cancellation or postponement of sports or volunteer events

Legal basis

Regulation on a temporary compensation scheme for organisers in the sports and volunteer sectors for cancellations, closings or postponements of events as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

The objective of the scheme is to compensate for losses or additional costs caused by the cancellation or postponement of sports or volunteer events to combat the spread of the COVID-19 virus.

Form of aid

Grants

Budget

NOK 700 million

Intensity

100 %

Duration

14 April to 31 May 2020

Economic sectors

Sport and voluntary sector

Name and address of the granting authority

The Norwegian Gaming and Foundation Authority

P.O.Box 800

NO-6805 Førde

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---
Case 1:03-cv-01768   Document 3    Filed 03/13/03   Page 1 of 2

Case 1:03-cv-01768   Document 3    Filed 03/13/03   Page 2 of 2
# Official Journal L 122/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 122 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 648 April 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 122

English edition

Legislation

Volume 648 April 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2021/569 of 30 March 2021 extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Advisory Mission in support of Security Sector Reform in Iraq (EUAM Iraq) (EUAM Iraq/1/2021) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2021/569 of 30 March 2021 extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union Advisory Mission in support of Security Sector Reform in Iraq (EUAM Iraq) (EUAM Iraq/1/2021)

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
of Clarify, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-66135) of our report dated January
19, 1999, except for Note 11 for which the date is March 12, 1999, on our audit
of the consolidated financial statements of Clarify, Inc. as of December 31,
1998 and 1997, and for the years ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996, and our
report dated January 19, 1999, on our audit of the financial statement schedule,
which reports are included in this Form 10-K.
 
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
 
San Jose, California
March 30, 1999
 
                                       53
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1

Eastern Division

Federal Trade Commission

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:03−cv−03904

Honorable Robert W. Gettleman

Kevin Trudeau, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, January 29, 2013:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Robert W. Gettleman: Leave is given to

defendant to file financial statement under seal. Mailed notice (gds)

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 542 Filed: 01/29/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:8004
# C_2019263EN.01005001.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/50

---

Action brought on 23 May 2019 — AMVAC Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-317/19)

(2019/C 263/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AMVAC Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu, M. Grunchard and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/344 of 28 February 2019; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/344 of 28 February 2019; (1)

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted further to a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted further to a manifest error of assessment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation results from a procedure during which the applicant’s rights of defence were not respected. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation results from a procedure during which the applicant’s rights of defence were not respected.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of legal certainty.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the proportionality principle. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the proportionality principle.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the precautionary principle. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the precautionary principle.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/344 of 28 February 2019 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance ethoprophos, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2019 L 62, p. 7).

---
Exhibit 14.1
 
      -
    
    Loyalty. Senior Financial Officers should not be, or appear to
be, subject to influences, interests or relationships that
conflict with the best interests of the Company.-
    
    Compliance with Applicable Laws. Senior Financial Officers are
expected to comply with all laws, rules and regulations
applicable to the Companys activities.-
    
    Observance of Ethical Standards. Senior Financial Officers
must adhere to high ethical standards in the conduct of their
duties. These include honesty and fairness.




---



##### 



-
    
    Improper conduct and activities. Senior Financial Officers maynot engage in any conduct or activities that are inconsistent
with the Companys best interests or that disrupt or impair
the Companys relationship with any person or entity with
which the Company has, or proposes to enter into, a business
or contractual relationship.-
    
    Compensation from non-Company sources. Senior Financial
Officers may not accept compensation for services performed
for the Company from any source other than the Company. Senior
Financial Officers should obtain the approval of the Audit
Committee prior to accepting any paid employment or consulting
position with another entity.




---



##### 



-
    
    Gifts. Senior Financial Officers and members of their
immediate families may not accept gifts from persons or
entities where any such gift is being made in order to
influence their actions in their position with the Company, or
where acceptance of the gifts could create the appearance of a
conflict of interest.
 -
    
    Personal use of Company assets. Senior Financial Officers may
not use Company assets, labor or information for personal use,
other than incidental personal use, unless approved by the
Chair of the Audit Committee or as part of a compensation or
expense reimbursement program.-
    
    Financial Interests in other Businesses. Senior Financial
Officers should avoid having an ownership interest in any
other enterprises, such as a customer, supplier or competitor,
if that interest compromises the officers loyalty to the
Company.
       Section 8.
    
    ENCOURAGING THE REPORTING OF ANY ILLEGAL OR UNETHICAL
BEHAVIOR.




---



#####
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________ m 00-30655

_______________ DIANNE HILL, Appellant,
VERSUS U.S. TRUSTEE; EUGENE HASTINGS, Trustee; FRAN STRANGE, Assistant Trustee; MOREHOUSE GENERAL HOSPITAL, Appellees.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DIANNE HILL, Appellant,
VERSUS EUGENE HASTINGS, Trustee; FRAN STRANGE, Assistant Trustee;

MOREHOUSE GENERAL HOSPITAL, Appellees.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DIANNE HILL, Appellant,
VERSUS EUGENE HASTINGS, Appellee.* Circuit Judge of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. 2 _________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

m 99-CV-2113

_________________________ November 13, 2001 Before BALDOCK, * SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: **

In this bankruptcy matter, Diane Hill contests her removal as trustee, a finding of contempt, and the denial of compensation. We have reviewed the briefs and applicable portions of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. We conclude that neither the district court nor the bankruptcy court committed reversible error. The judgment, accordingly, is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>


<CAPTION>
<S>                             <C>
<ARTICLE>                                 5
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                            2,593,343
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                       848,329
<ALLOWANCES>                        (14,261)
<INVENTORY>                         736,458
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  4,245,678
<PP&E>                              251,557
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    4,548,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             1,289,615
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                              4,715
<OTHER-SE>                       13,161,066
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      4,548,512
<SALES>                           1,069,678
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  1,069,678
<CGS>                               735,445
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       735,445
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  1,060,683
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (699,849)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (699,849)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                       (699,849)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.20)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1026 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1026

      To reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 17, 1997

 Mr. Grams (for himself, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Moseley-Braun, 
Mr. McConnell, and Mr. Leahy) introduced the following bill; which was 
read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY.

    Section 7 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 635f) is 
amended by striking ``1997'' and inserting ``2001''.

SEC. 2. TIED AID CREDIT FUND AUTHORITY.

    (a) Section 10(c)(2) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 
U.S.C. 635i-3(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``through September 30, 
1997''.
    (b) Section 10(e) of such Act (12 U.S.C. 635i-3(e)) is amended by 
striking the first sentence and inserting the following: ``There are 
authorized to be appropriated to the Fund such sums as may be necessary 
to carry out the purposes of this section.''.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE FINANCING FOR THE EXPORT OF 
              NONLETHAL DEFENSE ARTICLES OR SERVICES THE PRIMARY END 
              USE OF WHICH WILL BE FOR CIVILIAN PURPOSES.

    Section 1(c) of Public Law 103-428 (12 U.S.C. 635 note; 108 Stat. 
4376) is amended by striking ``1997'' and inserting ``2001''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Bryan M. Lemley, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact 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 presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer 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 small business issuer and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the small business issuer, 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 small business issuer’sdisclosure 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; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal 

control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.