alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 14.1

                                 CODE OF ETHICS

                              ORALABS HOLDING CORP.
                           CODE OF ETHICS (March 2004)

This Code of Ethics applies to the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of OraLabs Holding Corp. (the "Company"). The purpose of this Code of
Ethics is to promote honest and ethical conduct and compliance with the law,
particularly as related to the maintenance of the Company's financial books and
records and the preparation of its financial statements. The obligations of this
Code of Ethics supplement, but do not replace, any code of conduct or ethics
policy that may be applicable to all employees.

As an officer of the Company, you are expected to:

         Engage in and promote ethical conduct, including the ethical handling
of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional
relationships, and to disclose to the chair of the Audit Committee of the Board
of Directors or to the Chief Executive Officer who will forward the disclosure
to the Audit Committee chair, any material transaction or relationship that
reasonably could be expected to give rise to such a conflict;

         Carry out your responsibilities honestly, in good faith and with
integrity, due care and diligence, exercising at all times the best independent
judgment;

         Assist in the production of full, fair, accurate, timely and
understandable disclosure in reports and documents that the Company files with,
or submits to, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators and
in other public communications made by the Company;

         Comply with applicable government laws, rules and regulations;

         Promptly report (anonymously, if you wish to do so) to the Audit
Committee of the Board of Directors any violation of this Code of Ethics or any
other matters that would compromise the integrity of the Company's financial
statements. You may contact the chair of the Audit Committee, by mail: Michael
I. Friess, 5353 Manhattan Circle, Suite 101, Boulder, CO 80303; or by phone at:
303-499-6000, x-18; and

         Never take, directly or indirectly, any action to coerce, manipulate,
mislead or fraudulently influence the Company's independent auditors in the
performance of their audit or review of the Company's financial statements.

Compliance with this Code of Ethics is a term and condition of your employment.
The Company will take all necessary actions to enforce this Code, which may
include immediate dismissal. Violations of this Code of Ethics may also
constitute violations of law which may expose both you and the Company to
criminal or civil penalties.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1946** 

VIVIAN A. ANDERSON , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. CITY OF DANVILLE, a Municipal Corporation; DANVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; DETECTIVE DAVID WHITLEY, and unknown John Doe(s); CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, a Municipal Corporation; MAGISTRATE SUE BREASETTE; CHESAPEAKE POLICE DEPARTMENT; OFFICER NATHANIEL F. MCGANTY; CHESAPEAKE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD; CLINICIAN MICHAEL GAY, in his official capacity; UNKNOWN JOHN DOE(S ), all defendants in their official capacities , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Division of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:15

- cv - 00296

- AWA

- DEM )

Submitted : January 28, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Vivian A. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Vivian A. Anderson appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing her civil action for failure to comply with a pre - filing injunction
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Anderson v. City of Danville , No. 2:15

- cv - 00296

- AWA

- DEM ( E .D. Va. July 30 , 20 15 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
STATE of North Carolina v. Scott Robert ERICKSON.

No. 95PA07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 9, 2007.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Neil Dalton, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the state.

Thomas K. Maher, Durham, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
Order filed July 16, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00320-CV

NO. 14-19-00321-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF G.A.A.-G., J.S.A.-S., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 309th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 2007-20638 & 2008-39339

ORDER

These are accelerated appeals from judgments in suits in which the 

termination of the parent-child relationship is at issue. A jury trial took place 

between March 14, 2013 and April 10, 2013. Clerk’s records were filed in these 

appeals on April 25, 2019 and April 29, 2019. 

Our review of the records has determined that a relevant item has been omitted 

from the clerk’s records. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The records do not contain a 

copy of the jury charge.
The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record on or before August 1, 2019, containing the jury charge.

If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to 

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted 

item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 482 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 482

                    For the relief of Charles Nyaga.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 1, 2007

 Mr. Chambliss introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                    For the relief of Charles Nyaga.

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

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any 
order, for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Charles Nyaga shall be deemed to have been 
lawfully admitted to, and remained in, the United States, and shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1255).
    (b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall apply 
only if the application for issuance of an immigrant visa or the 
application for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees not 
later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa to Charles Nyaga, the Secretary of State shall instruct 
the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current or subsequent 
fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
available to natives of the country of Charles Nyaga's birth under 
section 202(e) or 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1152(e), 1153(a)), as applicable.
                                 <all>
```
Independent Accountants' Report



Board of Directors
Community Investors Bancorp, Inc.


We  have  reviewed  the  accompanying   consolidated   statements  of  financial
condition, earnings, comprehensive income, and cash flows of Community Investors
Bancorp,  Inc. as of March 31, 2001 and 2000, and for the nine- and  three-month
periods then ended.  The  financial  statements  are the  responsibility  of the
Corporation's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants.  A review  of  interim  financial
information consists principally of applying analytical  procedures to financial
data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America,  the
objective  of which is the  expression  of an opinion  regarding  the  financial
statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the  accompanying  financial  statements for them to be in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have  previously  audited,  in accordance with auditing  standards  generally
accepted  in the  United  States  of  America,  the  consolidated  statement  of
financial condition as of June 30, 2000, and the related consolidated statements
of earnings,  stockholders'  equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not
presented  herein) and in our report  dated  August 16,  2000,  we  expressed an
unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.  In our opinion,
the  information  set  forth  in  the  accompanying  consolidated  statement  of
financial  condition  as of June 30,  2000,  is fairly  stated,  in all material
respects, in relation to the consolidated  statement of financial condition from
which it has been derived.


/s/GRANT THORNTON LLP



Cincinnati, Ohio
April 24, 2001
IN RE M.G.

No. COA07-245.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 7, 2007.

Certification Date August 27, 2007.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (06JT784).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of CEO and CFO
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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.
 By:
    /s/ Brian AinsworthBrian AinsworthChief Executive Officer
March 31, 2008By:
    /s/ Robert AllenRobert AllenChief Financial Officer
March 31, 2008  75
STATE of North Carolina v. Timothy RICHARDSON.

No. 232A95-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, Howard S. Boney, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

Thomas Maher, for Timothy Richardson.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 26th day of September 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Nash County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 441 

To permit certain school districts in Illinois to be reconstituted for purposes 

of determining assistance under the Impact Aid program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 31, 2007 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. OBAMA) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To permit certain school districts in Illinois to be reconstituted for purposes of determining assistance under the 

Impact Aid program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR IMPACT AID PAYMENT. 

4 (a) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.—Notwith5 standing section 8013(9)(B) of the Elementary and Sec6 ondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7713(9)(B)), 

7 North Chicago Community Unit School District 187, 

8 North Shore District 112, and Township High School Dis9 trict 113 in Lake County, Illinois, and Glenview Public 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 441 IS

1 School District 34 and Glenbrook High School District 

2 225 in Cook County, Illinois, shall be considered local edu3 cational agencies as such term is used in and for purposes 

4 of title VIII of such Act. 

5 (b) COMPUTATION.—Notwithstanding any other pro6 vision of law, federally connected children (as determined 

7 under section 8003(a) of the Elementary and Secondary 

8 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(a))) who are in 

9 attendance in the North Shore District 112, Township 

10 High School District 113, Glenview Public School District 

11 34, and Glenbrook High School District 225 described in 

12 subsection (a), shall be considered to be in attendance in 

13 the North Chicago Community Unit School District 187 

14 described in subsection (a) for purposes of computing the 

15 amount that the North Chicago Community Unit School 

16 District 187 is eligible to receive under subsection (b) or 

17 (d) of such section if— 

18 (1) such school districts have entered into an 

19 agreement for such students to be so considered and 

20 for the equitable apportionment among all such 

21 school districts of any amount received by the North 

22 Chicago Community Unit School District 187 under 

23 such section; and 

24 (2) any amount apportioned among all such 

25 school districts pursuant to paragraph (1) is used by 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•S 441 IS

1 such school districts only for the direct provision of 

2 educational services. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                        5
       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          209,793
<SECURITIES>                                    9,852,294
<RECEIVABLES>                                   637,360
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,699,447
<PP&E>                                          1,351,852
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (606,793)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,444,506
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           4,820,143
<BONDS>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        130
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                      6,624,233
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,444,506
<SALES>                                         9,099,524
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                9,099,524
<CGS>                                           6,653,613
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   6,653,613
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                1,225,216
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              125,245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,095,450
<INCOME-TAX>                                    495,772
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             0
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    599,678
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.39
        

<PAGE>

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
                                THERMATRIX INC.
                         STATEMENTS OF COMPUTATION OF
                         COMMON SHARES AND EQUIVALENTS
                     (In thousands, except per share data)
                                  (Unaudited)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                        Three Months             Nine Months
                                                                     Ended September 30,      Ended September 30,
                                                                    --------------------     -------------------- 
                                                                      1996        1995         1996        1995
                                                                    ---------  ---------     ---------  ---------
<S>                                                                 <C>        <C>           <C>        <C>
Net Loss                                                            $ (836)    $(1,227)      $(3,328)   $(3,875)
                                                                    ======      ======        ======     ======  
Weighted average common shares outstanding                           7,435          93           765         77
Weighted average common equivalent shares:                                                              
        Weighted average preferred stock outstanding                             4,169         4,169      4,169
                                                                                                               
Adjustments to reflect requirements of the Securities and Exchange                                             
   Commission's Staff Accounting Bulletin No.  83:                                                             
        Preferred Stock Issuances                                                  284           284        284
        Preferred Stock Warrants                                                    17            17         17
        Common Stock Option Grants                                                 350           350        350
        Additional preferred stock issuances on completion of                                                  
          the initial public offering on June 19, 1996                             814           814        814 
                                                                    ------      ------        ------     ------  
                                                                                                        
Pro forma total weighted average common shares and equivalents       7,435       5,727         6,399      5,711
                                                                    ======      ======        ======     ======  
</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Barry Dean MINTZ.

No. 80P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Nora Henry Hargrove, for Mintz.

Steve Arbogast, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ben David, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 20th day of February 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th day of February 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of August 2008."
STEWART v. ESTATE OF BREWINGTON EX REL. HARTLEY.

No. COA08-401.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 7, 2008.

Certification Date October 27, 2008.

Appeal from Harnett (06CVS710).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 13/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 13/2014 of 8 January 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 13/2014                     

# of 8 January 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 January 2014.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
STATE v. PEOPLES.

No. COA07-1011.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 1, 2008.

Certification Date April 21, 2008.

Appeal from the Davidson (05CRS50617).

Cases Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.