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

EXHIBIT 14  CODE OF ETHICS FOR SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICERS

This code of ethics for Senior Financial Officers has been adopted by the Board
of Directors of GFY Foods, Inc., (Athe Company") to promote honest and ethical
conduct, proper disclosure of financial information in the Company's reports,
and compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations by the Company's
senior officers who have financial responsibilities.

                                  Applicability

As used in this code, the term Senior Financial Officer means the Corporation's
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Controller.

                            Principles and Practices

In performing his or her duties, each of the Senior Financial Officers must:

1.   Maintain high standards of honest and ethical conduct and avoid any actual
     or apparent conflict of interest.

2.   Report to the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors (or persons
     performing the equivalent functions) any conflict of interest that may
     arise and any material transaction or relationship that reasonably could be
     expected to give rise to a conflict,

3.   Provide, or cause to be provided, full, fair, accurate, timely and
     understandable disclosure in reports and documents that the Company files
     with the SEC and other regulatory organizations, State and Federal, and in
     other public communications.

4.   Comply and take all reasonable actions to cause others to comply with
     applicable governmental laws, rules, regulations and

5.   Promptly report violations to the appropriate committee of the Board of
     Directors.

6.   Senior Financial Officers must also comply with the Code of Ethics and
     Standards of Conduct applicable to the Corporation's Directors, officers
     and employees generally.

                                     Waiver

Any request for a waiver of any provision of this code must be in writing and
addressed to the Audit Committee. Waivers of the Senior Financial Officers code
of conduct in registered public companies must be reported on Form 8-K to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

                          Compliance and Accountability

The Audit Committee will assess compliance with this code, report material
violations to the Board of Directors and recommend to the Board appropriate
action.

Approved:

/S/  EDWARD SCHWALB                                      Date:  June 18, 2004
---------------------------
Edward Schwalb, CEO and CFO
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Harvey
Judkowitz, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Photovoltaic Solar Cells, Inc. on Form 10-Q, for the quarter ended May 31, 2010
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Photovoltaic Solar Cells, Inc.





Dated:
      July 13, 2010
              /s/
      Harvey JudkowitzHarvey
      Judkowitz, Chief Executive Officer
151 So. 920

#### Leo FOUNTAIN v. STATE.

1 Div. 776.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 14, 1933.

Frank G. Horne, of Monroeville, for appellant.

Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.

KNIGHT, Justice.

The appellant was indicted by a grand jury In the circuit court of Monroe county, Ala., for the offense of murder in the first degree.

On the 17th day of March, 1933, the appellant was arraigned on said indictment, and pleaded *not*guilty, and not guilty by reason of insanity. His cause was thereupon set for trial in said court on the 28th day of March, 1933.

On the day set for his trial, the defendant being personally present in open court, attended by his attorney, the cause was tried, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, as charged in’ the indictment .against the defendant, and fixed his punishment at death by electrocution. The appellant was duly adjudged by the court guilty of murder in the first degree, and ‘the court sentenced him to death by electrocution, fixing Friday, May 5, 1933, as the day for the execution of the appellant. From the judgment and sentence of the court, this appeal is prosecuted. The appeal is upon the record, there being no bill of exceptions. Pending the appeal the sentence was suspended by the court.

The record before us shows that the indictment, trial, conviction, and sentence of appellant are in- all respects regular, and free from any error of record. It follows, therefore,, that the judgment and sentence of the circuit court of Monroe county must be, and is, affirmed.

The day fixed by the trial court for the execution of the death sentence upon appellant having passed, it is ordered that Friday, the 9th day of February, 1984, be and the same is hereby fixed and set for the execution of the sentence of death pronounced upon appellant.

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LAURENCE FAULKS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 15425

D.C. No. 3:13

- cv
- 02871

- MEJ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maria

- Elena James, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 12, 2018 San Francisco, California
Before: SILER, ** PAEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Laurence Faulks appeals the district cour t’s entry of summary judgment in

favor of Wells Fargo

. After numerous unsuccessful attempts to obtain a loan modification from Wells Fargo, Faulks filed suit, alleging promissory estoppel,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUN 28 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

intentional and negligent misrepresentation , negligence , and intentional infliction

of emotional distress claims.

Becaus e Faulks failed to show that he acted in justifiable and reasonable

detrimental reliance upon any promise by Wells Fargo , the district court properly granted summary judgment to Wells Fargo on Faulks’s promissory estoppel claim.

See Sateriale v. R.J. Reyn olds Tobacco Co. , 69 7 F.3d 777, 792 (9th Cir. 2012)

. Similarly, Faulks’ s failure to put forward evidence creating a genuine issue of

material fact as to reliance proves fatal to his intentional and negligent misrepresentation claims. See Lazar v. Superior Court , 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 377, 380

– 381 (1996).

Faulks’ s negligence claim also fails. First, Faulks has failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his application for a loan

modification was in active review at the time Wells Fargo foreclosed on his house.
Second, even a ssuming lenders have a duty of care within the context of loan
modifications, see Alvarez v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. , 176 Cal. Rptr. 3d
304, 310 (Ct. App. 2014), Faulks has not p resented any evidence showing that , at the time foreclosure proceedings commenced, Wells Fargo was engaged in the sort of loan modification negotiations that would give rise to such a duty.

Last , because Faulks has not presented any evidence that Wells Fargo’s

act ions exceed ed all bounds of decency in a civilized society, the district court3

correctly granted summary judgment to Wells Fargo on Faulks’ s intentional

infliction of emotional distress claim

. Cf. Ragland v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n , 147 Cal. Rptr. 3d 41, 59

– 60 (Ct. App. 2012).

AFFIRMED

.
Case 1:07-cv-04462-AKH Document 5-2 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-04462-AKH Document 5-2 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-04462-AKH Document 5-2 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-04462-AKH Document 5-2 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 4 of 4
3056877.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------X

IN RE: WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE

LITIGATION

-------------------------------------------------------------

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No.:

21 MC 102 (AKH)

FLORA B. DAVILA,

Plaintiffs,

- against -

WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC., et al,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No.:

07-CV-4463-AKH

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

BY DEFENDANT

WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC.

-----------------------------------------------------------------X

To the Clerk of this Court and All Parties of Record:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant WESTON SOLUTIONS, INC. (“Weston”), by

and through its attorneys, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP,

hereby appears in the above-entitled action, and that all pleadings and papers in this action be

served upon the undersigned at the office and address stated below. The undersigned certifies

that he is admitted to practice before this Court.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Weston has previously appeared and served

its notice of adoption of answer in the Master Docket 21 MC 102, and files this notice merely for

the purposes of receiving CM/ECF notifications.

Case 1:07-cv-04463-AKH Document 40 Filed 12/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

3056877.1

Dated: New York, New York

December 11, 2007

Yours etc.,

WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP

By: _/s/ Jason Harrington_____

Jason Harrington (JH7273)

Attorneys for Defendant

Weston Solutions, Inc.

150 E 42

nd

Street

New York, NY 10017

(212) 490-3000 (p)

(212) 490-3038 (f)

To: All parties via ECF

Case 1:07-cv-04463-AKH Document 40 Filed 12/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
Unassociated Document


    EXHIBIT
10.8

    


    Certification
of Use of Proceeds

    


    To CFS
and Ms. Sherry Li:

    


    Our
company and all of its shareholders hereby certify that all the proceeds
transferred from CFS will be deposited into the company’s account and primarily
used for the acquisitions of certain entities currently owned by Daxinganling
Forestry Bureau.

    


    
      
        
          
            
              	
                      Liaoning
      Shengsheng Biotechnology Co., Ltd.

                    
	 
      
	
                      [Corporate
      Stamp]

                    
	
                      February
      12, 2010

                    
	 
      
	By:
      Baoquan Wang
# C_2017293EN.01004003.xml

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/40

---

Order of the General Court of 17 July 2017 — DQ and Others v Parliament

(Case T-38/17) (1)

1

(2017/C 293/52)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

1

---
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D 19

- 0 844

_____________________________

A MERICAN A IRLINES G ROUP ; A MERICAN A IRLINES and S EDGWICK C MS

,
Appellant s ,

v.

J ONATHAN I BERO ,
Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims

. Edward Almeyda , Judge

.

Date of Accident: October 22, 2016.

September 19, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.

A FFIRMED

.

R AY , C.J.

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

.

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

.2 _____________________________

Michael A. Hernandez of Jones, Hurley & Hand, P.A., Miami

, for Appellant s

.

Toni L. Villaverde of Toni L. Villaverde, PLLC, Coral Gable s , for Appellee.
#### WESTERN LOAN & SAVINGS COMPANY *v.*COLORADO SMELTING & MINING COMPANY.

WRIT OP ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE DISTRICT OP MONTANA.

No. 581.

Submitted November 9, 1908.

Decided November 16, 1908.

*Western Loan Co.*v. *Butte & Bostpn Mining Co.,*210 U. S. 368, followed.1

*Mr. John A. Shelton,*for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant in ¿rror.

1

 The points involved in this case, as stated in the headnote of *Western Loan Co.*v. *Butte & Boston Mining Co.,*are as follows:

“Where diversity of citizenship exists so that the suit is cognizable in some Circuit Court the objection to the jurisdiction of the particular court in which'the suit is brought may be waived by appearing and pleading to the merits. *In re Moore,*209 U. S. 490, overruling anything to the contrary in *Ex parte Wisner,*203 U. S. 449.

“In a State where objection that the court has not jurisdiction of the person must — as in Montana under Code, § 1820 — be taken by special appearance and motion aimed at the jurisdiction, the interposition by defendant of a demurrer going to the merits as well as to the jurisdiction amounts to a waiver of the objection that the particular Circuit Court in which he is sued -is without jurisdiction.”

*Per Curiam:*

Judgment reversed with costs, and cause remanded on authority of *Western Loan & Savings Co.*v. *The Butte & Boston Consolidated Mining Co.,*210 U. S. 368.
EXHIBIT A

CDS CLEARING

CLEARING PARTICIPANT

FEE DETAILS

 NORTH AMERICAN & SOVEREIGN PRODUCTS EUROPEAN PRODUCTS

INDEX (per Million) $5 €4

INDEX OPTION (per Million)1 $1.53 €1.53

SINGLE NAME (per Million) $15 €12

MAINTENANCE FEE

• No maintenance fee

FEE REPORTING & BILLING

• A monthly clearing house detailed fee report is available for download via the clearing house website on the second business day of 

every month

• ICE Clear Credit invoices Clearing Participants on the third business day of every month via email

• Clearing Participant invoices are collected through end of day processing on the third Friday of each month

INDEX OPTION VOLUME INCENTIVE PROGRAM

• Standard Program automatically, and without further action by Clearing Participants, applies to Clearing Participants and pro vides a tiered 

discount schedule based on USD equivalent, non-discounted Index Option fees billed since the start of the year (“Billed Fees”); the first 

300,000 of Billed Fees are not discounted, a 10% discount is provided for the second 300,000 of Billed Fees, a 20% discount i s provided for 

the third 300,000 of Billed Fees, and a 30% discount is provided for all cleared Index Options above that level

• Discount will be applied at the time of invoice

FURTHER INFORMATION

icesales.otcfinancial@theice.com

theice.com/clearcredit

The following are trademarks of Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and/or its affiliated companies: Intercontinental Exchange, ICE, ICE Futures Europe, New York Stock Exchange and NYSE. For more information 

regarding trademarks owned by Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. and/or its affiliated companies see: intercontinentalexchange.com/terms-of-use

 ICE CLEAR CREDIT: CLEARING PARTICIPANT FEE DETAILS 1

1 The listed fees are applicable from January 3, 2023 through calendar year 2023 and reflect a discount from ICC’s regular Index Option fees of $3/million 

or €3/million. On the first business day of 2024, ICC shall remove this discount and the fees will revert to ICC’s regular Index Option fees on this schedule 

dated January 2024.
Case 1:07-cv-05806-JSR Document 3 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05806-JSR Document 3 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05806-JSR Document 3 Filed 07/03/2007 Page 3 of 3
March 7, 2019 

Via the CFTC Web Submission Portal

Assistant Secretary of the Commission for FOIA Matters

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre 

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: FOIA Confidential Treatment Request: Petition Pursuant to Regulation 145.9(d)

To Whom It May Concern: 

On March 4, 2019, trueEX LLC (“trueEX”) submitted a notice, 2019-01S, to the 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the "Commission") via the Commission Portal 

to notify it of the fees trueEX intends to charge for activity on its swap execution facility 

effective April 16, 2019. trueEX is now submitting a revised notice that include a redline 

of changes being made to its existing fee schedule. Exhibit A to 2019-01S details the 

fee schedule (including the redlined version) and is the Confidential Material for which 

trueEX is requesting confidential treatment. 

By this petition, trueEX requests confidential treatment pursuant to Section 145.9(d) 

of the Commission’s regulations of the Confidential Material. A copy of this 

Confidential Material is attached. 

Pursuant to Sections 8(a) of the Act, and Commission Regulation § 145.9(d), 

trueEX requests confidential treatment of the Confidential Material on the grounds that 

disclosure of such material would reveal trade secrets of trueEX and/or reveal 

confidential commercial information of trueEX. The Confidential Material is proprietary 

to trueEX and contain highly sensitive and confidential business and technology 

information; in addition to violating trueEX’s proprietary rights, the disclosure of the 

Confidential Materials would grant competitors an unfair competitive advantage and/

or compromise the competitive advantages possessed by trueEX. Accordingly, trueEX 

is requesting the Commission to take appropriate steps to keep Confidential Material 

submitted to them confidential and to restrict the re-distribution of the Confidential 

Material. 

Pursuant to Commission Regulation § 145.9(d)(5), trueEX hereby requests that 

the Confidential Material be afforded confidential treatment in perpetuity. 

trueEX requests that the Commission notify the undersigned immediately after 

receiving any FOIA request, any court order, subpoena, or summons seeking to 

access the Confidential Material in whole or in part. trueEX further requests 

notification (through the undersigned) in the event that the Commission intends to 

disclose the Confidential Material in whole or in part to Congress or to any other 

governmental agency or unit pursuant to Section 8 of the CEA. trueEX does not waive 

its notification rights under Section 8(f) of the CEA with respect to any subpoena or 
summons with respect to the Confidential Material in whole or in part. 

Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to 

contact me by telephone at (312) 320-8934 or by email at fran@trueex.com. 

Sincerely, 

Fran Kenck

Chief Compliance Officer
EXHIBIT 14



DTLL, INC.

CODE OF ETHICS

FOR

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER OR CONTROLLER

OR PERSONS PERFORMING SIMILAR FUNCTIONS



In my role as Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, or Chief Accounting Officer or Controller of DTLL, Inc. (the Company), I certify that I adhere to and advocate the following principles and responsibilities governing my professional and ethical conduct.



To the best of my knowledge and ability, I will:



1.

Act with honesty and integrity, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts of interest in my personal and professional relationships.  If I find myself in a position where my objectivity may be questioned because of individual interest or family or personal relationships, I will notify the Board of Directors of the Company immediately.



2.

Provide the Company full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in reports and documents that the Company files with or submits to the Securities Exchange Commission and in other public communications made by the Company.



3.

Comply, to the best of my ability, with rules and regulations of federal, state and local governments and other appropriate private and public regulatory agencies.  I understand this responsibility may not be delegated or assumed by the Company or any other person.



4.

Act in good faith, responsibly, with due care, competence and diligence, without misrepresenting material facts or allowing my independent judgment to be subordinated.

5.

Respect the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of my employment except when authorized or otherwise legally obligated to disclose.  Confidential information acquired in the course of my employment may not be used for personal advantage.



6.

Maintain knowledge and skills important and relevant to my position.



7.

Report suspected violations of this Code promptly in written form to the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of the Company.



8.

Accept responsibility for adherence to this Code and acknowledge that violations of this Code may expose both me and the Company to criminal or civil prosecution.  I understand that any violation of this Code may result in corrective action, including possible termination of my employment with the Company.  I further acknowledge and understand that the Company may also seek civil recourse against me and/or refer alleged criminal misconduct to law enforcement agencies.



9.

Acknowledge that this Code cannot anticipate every possible situation or cover every topic in detail.  If I am unclear about a situation, it is my responsibility to ask for guidance before taking action.







____________________________________________

____________________________________________

Date

Signature



---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7808
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ORIN NIGEL CARR, a/k/a Stretch, a /k/a Christopher Codgell, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-92-53-F, CA-97-319-5-F) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 10, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Orin Nigel Carr, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Orin Nigel Carr seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), and on his motion to amend the § 2255 motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's order denying Carr's § 2255 motion and find no reversible error. The districtcourt properly denied relief on Carr's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the enhancement for his role in the offense because he failed to meet the standard in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984). Although the district court may have improperly denied Carr's motion to amend, any error was harmless. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0001498 29-AUG-2014 08:28 AM
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00649

- CR

M ARKUS A. G REEN

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 24th District Court of Calhoun County , Texas Trial Cause No. 1989

- 12

- 3983

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this ca use on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction

. The Court
orders the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. January 30 , 201 4