alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 14





**OCONEE
FINANCIAL CORPORATION**


**CODE
OF ETHICAL CONDUCT**





The Chief
Executive Officer (principal executive officer), Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer) and Controller (principal accounting officer) of
Oconee Financial Corporation (the “Company”) must:




·
    Act
      honesty and ethically, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts of interest
      in personal and professional relationships.




·
    Promote
      full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable disclosure in reports and
      documents that the Company files with, or submits to, the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and in other public communications made by
      the Company.




·
    Comply
      with applicable laws, rules, and regulations of federal, state, and local
      governments and other appropriate private and public regulatory
      agencies.




·
    Act
      in good faith and responsibly, with due care, competence, and diligence,
      without misrepresenting material facts.




·
    Respect
      the confidentiality of information acquired in the course of
      employment.




·
    Share
      knowledge and maintain skills necessary and relevant to the Company’s
      needs.




·
    Proactively
      promote ethical and honest behavior within the
  workplace.




·
    Assure
      responsible use of and control of all assets, resources, and information
      of the Company.




·
    Promptly
      report to a member of the Company’s Audit Committee any violations of this
      Code.




Those who
violate the Code, or who fail to cooperate fully with any inquiries or
investigations regarding possible violations of the Code, will be subject to
disciplinary action, including possible termination.




The Board
of Directors shall have the sole and absolute discretionary authority to approve
any changes to or waiver from this Code. Any change or waiver, including the
grounds for such waiver, shall be promptly disclosed through a filing with the
SEC on Form 8-K or the Company’s internet website; provided, however, disclosure
may only be made on the Company’s internet website in lieu of a report on Form
8-K if the Company has disclosed in its most recent Form 10-K that it would
disclose such events on the Company’s internet website and provided the website
address.




Adopted
December 17, 2003




**OCONEE
FINANCIAL CORPORATION**


**CERTIFICATION
TO COMPLY WITH THE**


**CODE
OF ETHICAL CONDUCT**





In my
role as __________________ of Oconee Financial Corporation (the “Company”), I
certify to you, the Board of Directors, that I will adhere to and advocate the
Code of Ethical Conduct.









Date:____________________________
    By:______________________________
      
      Name:____________________________
      
      Title:_____________________________
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6879
EZRA CHARLES CALLOWAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND; BARRY STANTON, Warden; MAJOR CRUMBECKER; SHIFT SERGEANT CRUMP, Defendants - Appellees, and PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY CORRECTIONAL CENTER; RICARDO WILLIAMS, II, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-324-AW) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Ezra Charles Calloway, Appellant Pro Se. Rhonda Lee Weaver, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Ezra Charles Calloway appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Calloway v. Prince George’s County , No. CA-02-324-AW (D. Md. May 16, 2002). 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.

AFFIRMED
# C_2011204EN.01002201.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2011 — São Paulo Alpargatas v OHIM — Fischer (BAHIANAS LAS ORIGINALES)

(Case T-422/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BAHIANAS LAS ORIGINALES - Earlier Community and national figurative trade marks havaianas and earlier national word mark HAVAIANAS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 204/38

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: São Paulo Alpargatas, SA (São Paolo, Brazil) (represented by: P. Merino Baylos and A. Velázquez Ibáñez, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Enrique Fischer (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: initially E. Rasche Aparicio, then M. de Justo Bailey, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 August 2009 (Case R 1477/2008-2), concerning opposition proceedings between São Paulo Alpargatas, SA and Enrique Fischer.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 August 2009 (Case R 1477/2008-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 August 2009 (Case R 1477/2008-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by São Paulo Alpargatas, SA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by São Paulo Alpargatas, SA;

| 3. | Orders Enrique Fischer to pay his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Enrique Fischer to pay his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.

1

---
11-01121

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

David Sandrowitz <dsandrowitz@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:06 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

David Sandrowitz

200 Paris Ct. SW

Vienna, VA 22180
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
  





 
  

			
	CANADA	  	CANADA
	PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK	  	PROVINCE DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK
	BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT	  	LOI SUR LES CORPORATIONS
		  	COMMERCIALES
		
	CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT	  	CERTIFICAT DE MODIFICATION

 NOVANTA INC. 
  

 
 Name of Corporation / Raison sociale
de la corporation 
 508971 
  

 
 Corporation Number / Numéro
de la corporation 
 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the Articles of the above-mentioned corporation were amended under the relevant section(s) of the Act, as
applicable: 
 JE CERTIFIE que les statuts de la corporation mentionnée ci-dessus ont été modifiés en vertu des articles
pertinents de la Loi, selon le cas : 
  

	(a)	Section 11 of the Business Corporations Act in accordance with the attached notice; Article 11 de la Loi sur les corporations commerciales conformément à l’avis ci-joint; 


 

	(b)	Section 26 of the Business Corporations Act as set out in the attached Articles of Amendment designating a series of shares; Article 26 de la Loi sur les corporations commerciales de la façon indiquée
dans les statuts de modification ci-joints décrivant les actions d’une série; 

  

	(c)	Section 117 of the Business Corporations Act as set out in the attached Articles of Amendment; 


	 	Article 117 de la Loi sur les corporations commerciales de la façon indiquée dans les statuts de modification ci-joints; 


 

	(d)	Section 132 of the Business Corporations Act as set out in the attached Articles of Reorganization. 


	 	Article 132 de la Loi sur les corporations commerciales de la façon indiquée dans les statuts de réorganisation ci-joints. 


 

					
	



	 		 	May 11, 2016 - le 11 mai 2016
	Deputy Director - Directeur adjoint	 		 	Date of Amendment - Date de modification









			
	NEW BRUNSWICK	 	NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK
	BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT	 	LOI SUR LES CORPORATIONS COMMERCIALES
	FORM 3	 	FORMULE 3
	ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT	 	STATUTS DE MODIFICATION
	(SECTION 26, 116)	 	(ARTICLE 26, 116)

  
  

 

					
	1 -	 	Name of Corporation - Raison sociale de la corporation	 	2 - Corporation No. - Numéro de la corporation
		 	GSI Group Inc.	 	      508971

  

 
  

					
	 3  -
	 	The articles of the above - mentioned corporation are amended as follows:	 	 Les statuts de la corporation mentionnée ici sont modifiés comme suit :

			
		 	The new name of the coporation is: - La nouvelle raison sociale de la corporation est :	 	
			
		 	NOVANTA INC.	 	

  
  

					
	  
 Date
	  	  
 Signature
	  	  
 Description of Office -
Description du bureau

		 	 
	  2016-05-11
  

 
	  	  Robert Buckley

 
  
	  	 Chief Financial Officer

 
  

	  
 FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY

RÉSERVÉ À L’USAGE DU MINISTRÈRE

Corporation No. - No. de Corporation    508971
  

TN#    2356639
  

SN0250/45-5031 (6/01)
 SN0307
	  	  
 Filed - Déposé

	  	2016-05-11
Reginald HAWKINS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6714.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Valentina SHESHTAWY, et al., petitioners, v. J. Cary GRAY, et al.

No. 17-1029.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

*1299Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Form
10-Q  as  of September 30, 1998  and  for the nine months then ended, and is
qualified  in  its  entirety  by  reference to such financial statements and
footnotes.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       4,095,567
<SECURITIES>                                10,529,485
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,690,846
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  9,683,961
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,406,422
<PP&E>                                       4,519,375
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              45,660,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,657,360
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   141,834,782
<OTHER-SE>                               (105,726,574)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                45,660,596
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,745,006
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,567,004
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            22,985,240
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             145,570
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (18,117,625)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (18,117,625)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (18,117,625)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.25)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<FN>
<F1>Basic and diluted net loss per share are the same amount.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2011252EN.01004902.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/49

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 13 April 2011 — Lebedef and Jones v Commission

(Case F-29/09 REV)

(Civil service - Revision of a judgment - No new facts - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 252/104

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) and Trevor Jones (Ernzen, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Zieleśkiewicz and M. Bauer, Agents)

Intervener:

Re:

Re:

Action by the applicants for revision of a judgment delivered by the Third Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal on 30 September 2010 in Case F-29/09

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the application for revision as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application for revision as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders Mr. Lebedef and Mr. Jones to pay all the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr. Lebedef and Mr. Jones to pay all the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union, the intervener, to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union, the intervener, to bear its own costs.

---
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                    ------------
                                 ALPHATRADE.COM
                              A Nevada corporation

                            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 AlphaTrade.com.  (the "Company") on Form
10K-A for the year ended  December  31,  2008 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Gordon Muir,  Chief
Executive Officer of the Company,  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 and belief:

            (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 results of operations of the
Company.



Dated: October 25, 2010                    /s/ Gordon J. Muir
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Chief Executive Officer, President,
                                           Chairman, and Director























                                     32.1-1
Martin NEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6767.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
II-00623

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

kim groom <kimgroom@hotmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 1:19 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

kim groom

306 williams blvd nw

orting, WA 98360
# C_2009180EN.01005002.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/50

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 4 June 2009 — UniCredit v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (UniCredit)

(Case T-4/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of Opposition - No need to adjudicate)

2009/C 180/94

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: UniCredit SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH (Frankfurt, Germany) (represented by: J. Zindel, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 November 2008 (Case R 1449/2006-2) concerning opposition proceedings between UniCredit SpA and Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 07.03.2009.

1

---
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT



I, James Clark, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Mind2Market, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of December 31, 2003; and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: August 23, 2004


/s/James Clark
-----------------------
James Clark, CEO
In Re John Peyton ALEXANDER, petitioner.

No. 17-7902.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.