alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit99.1**

 

**AMERICAN RESTAURANTGROUP, INC.**

 

**CertificationPursuant 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 Actof 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certify asfollows:

 

1.                                       RalphS. Roberts is the Chief Executive Officer of American Restaurant Group, Inc.(the “Company”).

 

2.                                       WilliamG. Taves  is the Chief Financial Officerof the Company.

 

3.                                       Eachof the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that:

 

(A)                              TheCompany’s Form 10-Q/A accompanying this Certification, in the form filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the“Exchange Act”); and

 

(B)                                Theinformation in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:   March  28, 2003 |   |                     |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                                    |   |                     |
|                                    |   | /s/ Ralph S.  Roberts    |   |
|                                    |   | Ralph S.  Roberts        |
|                                    |   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|                                    |   |                     |
|                                    |   |                     |
|                                    |   | /s/ William  G. Taves    |   |
|                                    |   | William G.  Taves        |
|                                    |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Ronald D. Hunter, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Standard Management Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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
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 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; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 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 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 controls over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    
    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: August 13, 2004 /s/ Ronald D. HunterRonald D. HunterChairman and Chief Executive Officer
 31
Exhibit 10.17

 

RHYTHM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

 

FIRST AMENDMENT

TO THE

2017 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

 

This FIRST AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) to the 2017 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”), of Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”), is being adopted by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, by unanimous written consent in lieu of a special meeting dated as of April 19, 2018.  The Plan is hereby amended as follows:

 

1.             Section 6.1 of the Plan hereby is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

 

6.1  Plan Periods.  The Initial Plan Period shall commence on June 1, 2018 and continue for six months.  After the Initial Plan Period, there will be two consecutive six-month Plan Periods during each twelve-month period thereafter, with the first six-month Plan Period beginning on December 1 and ending on the immediately following May 31, and the second six-month Plan Period beginning on June 1 and ending on the immediately following November 30 unless otherwise determined by the Committee. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chief Executive Officer and/or Chief Financial Officer of the Company shall have the authority, in their sole discretion, to select different dates for the start date of the Initial Plan Period and the subsequent Plan Periods.

 

Except to the extent amended hereby, all of the terms, provisions and conditions set forth in the Plan are hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in full force and effect.  The Plan and this Amendment shall be read and construed together as a single instrument.

 

[End of Document]
# C_2009220EN.01004001.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/40

---

Action brought on 17 July 2009 — Fédération Internationale des Logis v OHIM

(Case T-282/09)

2009/C 220/84

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fédération Internationale des Logis (Paris, France) (represented by B. Brisset, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2009 in Case R 1511/2008-1 and allow registration of the trade mark applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2009 in Case R 1511/2008-1 and allow registration of the trade mark applied for;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a green square for goods and services in Classes 3, 18, 24, 43 and 44 — Application No 6 468 789

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, as the representation of a square with convex edges in a particular and specific green colour is distinctive with regard to the goods and services for which the registration was sought, in so far as those elements give the mark a particular appearance for those goods and services.

Pleas in law:

---
1 The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3767

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Juan Valadez, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 5, 2007 Filed: January 12, 2007

___________ Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Juan Valadez appeals the 120-month prison sentence imposed by the district court 1 after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. His counsel has move d to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether Valdadez’s guilty plea and corresponding appeal waiver we re knowing and voluntary and asserting several other arguments at Valadez’s request.-2- We conclude that this appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver Valadez agreed to as part of his written plea agreement. Further, though Valadez repeatedly expressed his displeasure at the inclusion of the appeal waiver in the plea agreement, he also repeatedly expressed his understanding of the implications of the waiver and his understanding that the plea agreement was dependent on inclusion of the waiver. Thus, we conclude the appeal waiver is valid, and we enforce it. See United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were entere d into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result; one important way district court can ensure plea agreement and appeal waiver are knowing and voluntary is to properly question defendant about decision to enter agreement and to waive right to appeal); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena , 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case).
Having reviewed the record i ndependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issu es falling outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
EX-10.12



 Exhibit 10.12 

Power of Attorney 
 I,
Xu He, a Chinese citizen with Chinese Identification Card No.440105198509025418, and a holder of 37.5% of the entire registered capital in Guangzhou Cornerstone Capital Management Co., Ltd., (the “Cornerstone Capital”) (the
“My Shareholding”), hereby irrevocably authorize Guangzhou Cornerstone Corporate Consulting Co., Ltd. (the “WFOE”) to exercise the following rights relating to My Shareholding during the term of this Power of
Attorney: 
 The WFOE is hereby authorized to act on behalf of myself as my exclusive agent and attorney with respect to all matters
concerning My Shareholding, including without limitation to: 1) attend shareholders’ meetings of Cornerstone Capital; 2) exercise all the shareholder’s rights and shareholder’s voting rights I am entitled to under the laws of China
and Cornerstone Capital’s Articles of Association, including but not limited to the sale or transfer or pledge or disposition of My Shareholding in part or in whole; and 3) designate and appoint on behalf of myself the legal representative, the
executive director and/or director, supervisor, the chief executive officer and other senior management members of Cornerstone Capital. 

Without limiting the generality of the powers granted hereunder, the WFOE shall have the power and authority under this Power of Attorney to
execute the Transfer Contracts stipulated in Exclusive Option Agreement, to which I am required to be a party, on behalf of myself, and to effect the terms of the Share Pledge Agreement and Exclusive Option Agreement, both dated the date hereof, to
which I am a party. 
 All the actions associated with My Shareholding conducted by the WFOE shall be deemed as my own actions, and all the
documents related to My Shareholding executed by the WFOE shall be deemed to be executed by me. I hereby acknowledge and ratify those actions and/or documents by the WFOE. 

The WFOE is entitled to re-authorize or assign its rights related to the aforesaid matters to any
other person or entity at its own discretion and without giving prior notice to me or obtaining my consent. 
 This Power of Attorney is
coupled with an interest and shall be irrevocable and continuously valid from the date of execution of this Power of Attorney, so long as I am a shareholder of Cornerstone Capital. 

During the term of this Power of Attorney, I hereby waive all the rights associated with My Shareholding, which have been authorized to WFOE
through this Power of Attorney, and shall not exercise such rights by myself. 
 This Power of Attorney is written in Chinese and English;
in case there is any conflict between the Chinese version and the English version, the Chinese version shall prevail. 

  
 1 

Strictly Confidential 








 
			
	Xu He
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Xu He

		
	Date:	 	October 12, 2017


  

			
	Mingqi Huang
		
	Witness:	 	 /s/ Mingqi Huang

		
	Date:	 	October 12, 2017


  
 2 

Strictly Confidential
Donivon Craig TINGLE, petitioner, v. Sonny PERDUE, Secretary of Agriculture, et al.

No. 17-807.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
# C_2011232EN.01002303.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of 20 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Vieira do Minho — Portugal) — Manuel Afonso Esteves v Axa Seguros Portugal SA

(Case C-437/10) (1)

(2011/C 232/38)

Language of the case: Portuguese

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

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             894
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,921
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (961)
<INVENTORY>                                     24,944
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,332
<PP&E>                                          72,660
<DEPRECIATION>                                (28,008)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 284,242
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,411
<BONDS>                                        168,167
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        90,406
<OTHER-SE>                                    (26,567)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   284,242
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,274
<CGS>                                           74,743
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,743
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,699
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,671
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    581
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,496
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (915)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (915)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
II-O0200

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Charles Laird <lairdc@sbcglobal.net>

Friday, December 3, 2010 6:53 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.

Charles Laird

12562 Pinon CT

Garden Grove, CA 92843
Electronically Filed Supreme Court 30745 26-OCT-2010 03:04 PM

NO. 30745
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I
RONDA LEE RAMOS-ELSENBACH, Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE LLOYD VAN DE CAR, JUDGE OF THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI ' I;

and THE HONORABLE GREG K. NAKAMURA, SENIOR JUDGE OF THE

FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (FC-D No. 07-01-132K)
ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ. and Circuit Judge McKenna, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of petitioner Ronda Lee Ramos-Elsenbach's petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it appears that: (1) petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the relief requested; (2) petitioner can seek review of the respondent judges' rulings by appealing from the divorce decree entered in FC-D 07-1-132K; and (3) the question of the disqualification of the presiding judge is not a question that cannot otherwise be reviewed on petitioner's appeal from the divorce decree. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to extraordinary relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai ' i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ ofmandamus or prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. Such writs are not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures.); Peters v. Jamieson, 48 Haw. 247, 257, 397 P.2d 575, 582-83 (1964) (A writ of prohibition will lie to compel the disqualification of a trial judge where the question of disqualification cannot otherwise be reviewed.). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. DATED: 	 Honolulu, Hawaii, October 26, 2010. ' /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

2
H. Res. 1583 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 15, 2010. 

Whereas on September 24, 2005, Hurricane Rita made landfall as a Category 3 hurricane just east of the TexasLouisiana border, between Sabine Pass and Johnson’s 

Bayou, with wind speeds of 120 miles per hour, and further devastated the Gulf Coast; 

Whereas Hurricane Rita caused 7 deaths, forced 3,000,000 

residents to evacuate their homes, left 1,000,000 people 

without electricity (according to the National Climatic 

Data Center), and caused flooding and tornadoes in the 

States of Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama; 

Whereas damages from Hurricane Rita are estimated at 

$11,300,000,000; 

Whereas in 2005, Hurricane Rita was the second hurricane 

to reach Category 5 status in the Gulf of Mexico, making 

it only the third time that more than one Category 5 

storm had formed in the Atlantic in the same year (according to the National Climatic Data Center); 

Whereas the storm surge from Hurricane Rita was as high 

as 15 feet near the landfall site and according to the 

United States Geological Survey traveled as far as 50 

miles inland, causing disastrous flooding and massive loss 

of property; 
2 

•HRES 1583 EH 

Whereas tens of thousands of homes and businesses in Louisiana and Texas were destroyed by the flooding; and 

Whereas the United States Geological Survey’s National Wetlands Center indicates that 217 square miles of Louisiana’s coastal lands were transformed to water after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) observes the fifth anniversary of the date on 

which Hurricane Rita devastated the coasts of Louisiana 

and Texas; 

(2) expresses its support to the survivors of Hurricane Rita and condolences to the families of its victims; 

(3) commends the courageous efforts of those who 

assisted in the response to the storm and the recovery 

process; 

(4) recognizes the contributions of the communities 

in Louisiana and Texas to the United States; and 

(5) reaffirms its commitment to rebuild, renew, and 

restore the Gulf Coast region. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 32.4



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 on Form 10-K of TransDigm Inc. (the
Company) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gregory Rufus, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Assistant Secretary (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of the dates indicated and results of operations of the
Company for the periods indicated.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: November 29, 2005



/s/    GREGORY RUFUSName:

Gregory RufusTitle:

Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)