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

----

|   | (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 result of operations of the Company. |

|   | /s/Frank C. Condella, Jr.      |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|   | Frank C. Condella, Jr.                        |
|   | Interim Chief Executive OfficerApril 30, 2010 |
Exhibit 31(b)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Herman Roth, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Globus
International Resources Corp. for the three months ended December 31, 2004;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
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(s) 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;and

     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal 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(s) 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;and

     (b) 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.

Date: January 26, 2005

/s/ HERMAN ROTH
-----------------------------

                                  Page 18 of 19
_________________________________________ 

 

 

___________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

March 11, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

135848 (9) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

TIMOTHY MCCLAIN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 135848 

 CoA: 282778 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

Defendant-Appellee. 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $10.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court. 

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$365.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

 Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this 

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order. 

jm 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 11, 2008 

Clerk
**EXHIBIT      21.1**

**LIST      OF SUBSIDIARIES **

| Name                                                 |   | Jurisdiction                of Incorporation |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |   |                                         |
| Saronix-eCERA                Corporation             |   | Taiwan                                       |
| Pericom                Semiconductor (HK) Limited    |   | Hong                Kong                     |
| Pericom                Taiwan Limited                |   | Taiwan                                       |
| Pericom                Asia Limited                  |   | Hong                Kong                     |
| PSE                Technology (Shandong) Corporation |   | Shandong,                China               |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5
<MULTIPLIER>       1

<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE> YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                        DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                            124
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  84,446
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               84,570
<PP&E>                                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 84,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          99,279
<BONDS>                                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                   18,656,881
<OTHER-SE>                                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   84,570
<SALES>                                                        84,446
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               84,446
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  33,011
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              6,305
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                51,435
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            51,435
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   51,435
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0




</TABLE>
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 1 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 2 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 3 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 4 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 5 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 6 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 7 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 8 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 9 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 10 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 11 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 12 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 13 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 14 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 15 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 16 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 17 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 18 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 19 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 20 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 21 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 22 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 23 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 24 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 25 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 26 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 27 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 28 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 29 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 30 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 31 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 32 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 33 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 34 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 35 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 36 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 37 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 38 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 39 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 40 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 41 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 42 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 43 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 44 of 45
Case 1:03-cr-00978 Document 59 Filed 08/19/04 Page 45 of 45
II

Calendar No. 289

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1354

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for the designation

of common carriers not subject to the jurisdiction of a State commission

as eligible telecommunications carriers.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 31, 1997

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. INOUYE, Mr.

DASCHLE, Mr. DORGAN, and Mr. STEVENS) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation

NOVEMBER 8, 1997

Reported by Mr. MCCAIN, without amendment

A BILL

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to provide for

the designation of common carriers not subject to the

jurisdiction of a State commission as eligible telecommunications carriers.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1354 RS

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF

2 1934.

3 Section 214(e) of the Communications Act of 1934

4 (47 U.S.C. 214(e)) is amended—

5 (1) by striking ‘‘(2) or (3)’’ in paragraph (1)

6 and inserting ‘‘(2), (3), or (6)’’;

7 (2) by striking ‘‘interstate services,’’ in para8 graph (3) and inserting ‘‘interstate services or an

9 area served by a common carrier to which paragraph

10 (6) applies,’’;

11 (3) by inserting ‘‘(or the Commission in the

12 case of a common carrier designated under para13 graph (6))’’ in paragraph (4) after ‘‘State commis14 sion’’ each place such term appears;

15 (4) by inserting ‘‘(or the Commission under

16 paragraph (6))’’ in paragraph (5) after ‘‘State com17 mission’’; and

18 (5) by inserting after paragraph (5) the follow19 ing:

20 ‘‘(6) COMMON CARRIERS NOT SUBJECT TO

21 STATE COMMISSION JURISDICTION.—In the case of a

22 common carrier providing telephone exchange service

23 and exchange access that is not subject to the juris24 diction of a State commission, the Commission shall

25 upon request designate such a common carrier that

26 meets the requirements of paragraph (1) as an eligi-
3

S 1354 RS

1 ble telecommunications carrier for a service area

2 designated by the Commission consistent with appli3 cable Federal and State law. Upon request and con4 sistent with the public interest, convenience and ne5 cessity, the Commission may, with respect to an area

6 served by a rural telephone company, and shall, in

7 the case of all other areas, designate more than one

8 common carrier as an eligible telecommunications

9 carrier for a service area designated under this para10 graph, so long as each additional requesting carrier

11 meets the requirements of paragraph (1). Before

12 designating an additional eligible telecommunications

13 carrier for an area served by the rural telephone

14 company, the Commission shall find that the des15 ignation is in the public interest.’’.
Calendar No. 289

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1354

A BILL

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to proas eligible telecommunications carriers. subject to the jurisdiction of a State commission vide for the designation of common carriers not

NOVEMBER 8, 1997

Reported without amendment
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7486

SABASTIAN HASKINS, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-03-228-AM) Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: September 20, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sabastian Haskins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).*We note that this is Haskins’s second § 2254 petition, which should have been dismissed as an unauthorized successive petition. By order filed March 11, 2004, this appeal was placed in abeyance for Jones v. Braxton , No. 03-6891. In view of our recent decision in Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004), we no longer find it necessary to hold this case in abeyance for Jones . - 2 - PER CURIAM: Sabastian Haskins seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). *An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 225 3(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Haskins has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Finally, in accordance with United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003), we construe Haskins’s notice of appeal and informal brief as a- 3 - motion for authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a successive habeas corpus petition. To obtain permission to bring a second or successive § 2254 petition, a movant must show that his claim: (1) “relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable” or (2) relies on newly discovered facts that tend to establish the movant’s innocence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. We conclude that Haskins has not satisfied either standard. Accordingly, we deny Haskins’s implicit application for leave to file a successive § 2254 petition, deny Haskins’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 290 

Supporting the designation of October 6, 2011, as ‘‘Jumpstart’s Read for 

the Record Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 6, 2011 

Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. ISAKSON, and Mr. BEGICH) submitted the 

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the designation of October 6, 2011, as 

‘‘Jumpstart’s Read for the Record Day’’. 

Whereas Jumpstart, a national early education organization, 

is working to ensure that all children in the United 

States enter school prepared to succeed; 

Whereas, year-round, Jumpstart recruits and trains college 

students and community members to serve preschool children in low-income neighborhoods, helping them to develop the key language and literacy skills necessary to 

succeed in school and in life; 

Whereas, since 1993, Jumpstart has engaged more than 

20,000 adults in service to more than 90,000 young children in communities across the United States; 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 290 ATS 

Whereas Jumpstart’s Read for the Record, presented in partnership with the Pearson Foundation, is a national campaign that mobilizes adults and children in an effort to 

close the early education achievement gap in the United 

States by setting a reading world record; 

Whereas the goals of the campaign are to raise awareness in 

the United States of the importance of early education, 

provide books to children in low-income households 

through donations and sponsorship, and celebrate the 

commencement of Jumpstart’s program year; 

Whereas October 6, 2011, would be an appropriate date to 

designate as ‘‘Jumpstart’s Read for the Record Day’’ because it is the date Jumpstart aims to set the world 

record for the largest shared reading experience; and 

Whereas Jumpstart hopes to engage more than 2,100,000 

children in reading Anna Dewdney’s ‘‘Llama Llama Red 

Pajama’’ during this record-breaking celebration of reading, service, and fun, all in support of preschool children 

in the United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) supports the designation of October 6, 

3 2011, as ‘‘Jumpstart’s Read for the Record Day’’; 

4 (2) commends Jumpstart’s Read for the Record 

5 in its sixth year; 

6 (3) encourages adults, including grandparents, 

7 parents, teachers, and college students— 

8 (A) to join children in creating the world’s 

9 largest shared reading experience; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 290 ATS 

1 (B) to show their support for early literacy 

2 and Jumpstart’s early education programming 

3 for young children in low-income communities; 

4 and 

5 (4) respectfully requests the Secretary of the 

6 Senate to transmit a copy of this resolution to 

7 Jumpstart, one of the leading nonprofit organiza8 tions in the United States in the field of early edu9 cation. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0

Eastern Division

David Bourke

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:03−cv−07749

Hon. James B. Zagel

Village of Downers Grove, Illinois, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, January 18, 2008:

 MINUTE entry before Judge James B. Zagel : Motion hearing held on 1/18/2008.

MOTION by Plaintiff David Bourke to amend/correct complaint by filing amendment to

complaint, adding additional defendants [CORRECTED TO INCLUDE PROPOSED

AMENDMENT] [26] is granted. Status hearing set for 2/19/2008 at 10:00 AM.Mailed

notice(drw, )

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-07749 Document 29 Filed 01/18/08 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.115


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE RETENTION AGREEMENT


 


This First Amendment to Executive
Retention Agreement (“Amendment”) is entered into as of November 15, 2008,
by and between Meade Instruments Corp. (the “Company”) and Paul E. Ross (“Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have
entered into that certain Executive Retention Agreement, dated as of January 10,
2008 (“Executive Retention Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire
to amend the Executive Retention Agreement as set forth below.


 


For good and valuable consideration, the
parties agree as follows:


 


Section 1.               All defined terms not otherwise defined herein shall
have the meanings set forth in the Executive Retention Agreement.


 


Section 2.               The Termination Date set forth in Section 5 of
the Executive Retention Agreement shall be changed to March 31, 2009 and
the Term of the Executive Retention Agreement shall be extended until such
Termination Date.


 


Section 3.               Unless otherwise specifically set forth herein, all other
terms and conditions of the Executive Retention Agreement shall remain as
originally set forth therein.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.


 


	
   

  	
  MEADE INSTRUMENTS
  CORP.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Steven L. Muellner

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
  President and

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Chief Executive Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  EXECUTIVE

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Paul E. Ross