alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2

                           ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT

I, Pierre Boutros, being an officer of The Bank of New York, a New York
Banking Corporation, the Trustee in respect of the S&P-Linked Investment Trust
Certificates, Series 1997-SP-1 Trust (the "Trust"), certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
          Trust in respect of periods covered by this annual report of the
          Trust;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in those reports, taken as a
          whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this
          annual report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the distribution information required to be
          provided to the Depositor or the certificateholders by the Trustee
          under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement for inclusion
          in such distribution reports is included in such reports; and

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar agreement and
          based on my knowledge, except as disclosed in such reports, the
          Trustee has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

Date: March 28, 2005


         /s/ Pierre Boutros
-----------------------------------
Pierre Boutros, Assistant Treasurer
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 11(a)
                                                                               

                              ELECTROSCOPE, INC.


               COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
                                       
                          AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
                                  (UNAUDITED)
                                       

                                                     For the Three Months Ended
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                     December 31,   December 31,
                                                         1996           1995    
                                                    ------------   ------------
NET INCOME (LOSS)                                    $  (552,532)   $  (284,165)
                                                    ------------   ------------
                                                    ------------   ------------

SHARES USED IN SHARE COMPUTATION-
 Common stock shares outstanding (weighted average)    5,340,820      3,734,776

 Treasury stock effect of common stock and
  equivalents issued within one year of the public
  offering at prices less than the public offering 
  price                                                     -            54,102
                                                    ------------   ------------
   Shares used in computation                          5,340,820      3,788,878
                                                    ------------   ------------
                                                    ------------   ------------

NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE AND
 COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE                              $    (0.10)    $    (0.07)
                                                    ------------   ------------
                                                    ------------   ------------

                                       20
STATE v. CUMMINGS.

No. COA08-163.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Robeson (05CRS56491, 05CRS56494, 05CRS56495).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.
#### Robert R. Masters, Respondent, v Edward Celestian, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 201]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John *V.*Centra, J), entered May 19, 2004 in a personal injury action. The order denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed with costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he sustained when he fell from the roof of defendant’s residence, which was then under construction. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. With respect to the causes of action alleging the violation of Labor Law *1427§ 240 (1) and § 241 (6), defendant’s own submissions raise triable issues of fact whether defendant is entitled to the exemption from liability for “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work” (§ 240 [1]; *see*§ 241 [6]; *Gambee v Dunford,*270 AD2d 809, 810 [2000]; *Smith v Torre,*247 AD2d 896, 897 [1998]). In addition, “defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that he did not breach his duty ‘to take reasonable care and prudence in securing the safety of the work area’ ” *(Farrell v Okeic,*266 AD2d 892, 893 [1999], quoting *Hammond v International Paper Co.,*161 AD2d 914, 914 [1990]). Thus, defendant also failed to establish his entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action *(see id.; see also Giglio v St. Joseph Intercommunity Hosp.,*309 AD2d 1266, 1267 [2003], *amended on other grounds*2 AD3d 1485 [2003]). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.
Order entered February 24, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00852-CR

DWAYNE BURKS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-71706-J

ORDER

The Court GRANTS appellant’s February 21, 2014 second motion to extend time to file 

his brief. We ORDER appellant’s brief filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1053/2014Show full title

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1053/2014 of 6 October 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in VIIh, VIIj and            VIIk by vessels flying the flag of Belgium         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Regulation (EU) No 1053/2014                     

# of 6 October 2014

# establishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in VIIh, VIIj and VIIk by vessels flying the flag of Belgium

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring                           compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014(2) lays down quotas for 2014.

(2)According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation                              by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for                              2014.

(3)It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

## Article 1U.K.Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein                     for 2014 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.                  

## Article 2U.K.Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in                     the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited                     to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.                  

## Article 3U.K.Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that 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, 6 October 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Lowri Evans                            

*Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

1

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.                           

2

Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and                              groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2014, p. 1).
Amendment to Material Contract McZeal




 Exhibit 10.1(a) 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made between PGI ENERGY FUND I SERIES-2010, INC., a Texas corporation (the “Company”) and Marcellous S. McZeal (“Executive”),
and collectively known as the “the Parties, to become effective as of November 17, 2010 (the “Effective Date”). 
 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS on June 15, 2010, the Parties entered into an Employment Agreement
wherein the Company agreed to employ and the Executive agreed to accept such employment upon the terms and conditions set forth therein. 

WHEREAS, on November 17, 2010, the Parties agree and approve this Amendment to said Agreement under which the Parties will agree to obligate and
bind themselves. 
 WHEREAS, The Parties agree to the following terms and conditions and expressly agree that the following terms and conditions
only are amended. All remaining portions of the Employment Agreement not specifically Amended herein remain unaltered. If any of the following terms and conditions conflict with any of the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement, then,
notwithstanding any term in the Agreement, the following terms and conditions govern and control the rights and obligations of the parties. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, said Agreement is amended as follows: 
 1. Paragraph 15 is added
to read: 
 15. Acknowledgment. 
 The Parties hereby Acknowledge and Agree that the Employment Agreement is not enforceable unless and until the Company receives funding under the Subscription Agreement with Heffernan Capital Management
Co., Ltd. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the date first set forth above. 

  

			
	Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement	  	page 1











	
	EXECUTIVE:
	
	//SS: Marcellous S. McZeal
	Marcellous S. McZeal
	
	THE COMPANY:
	
	PGI ENERGY FUND I SERIES-2010, INC.
	
	//SS: Marcellous McZeal
	 By: Marcellous McZeal

	
	Its: Chief Executive Officer


  

			
	Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement	  	page 2
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 50301 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**
versus **Senovio Rodriguez**

**- Salas,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:22

- CR

- 1541

- 1

**_____________ _________________**  Before **Smith, Higginson,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Senovio Rodriguez

- Salas appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States after having been previously removed in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). On appeal, Rodriguez

- Salas raises for the first time that the district c ourt judgment

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 19, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-50301 Document: 58-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/19/2024No. 23

- 50301

2 incorrectly cites only 8 U.S.C. § 1326 instead of citing the appropriate statutory subsection under which he was convicted and sentenced. First, t his C ourt has a duty to examine the basis of its jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary

. Mosley v . Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987) . After Rodriguez

- Salas filed his notice of appeal , the district court entered an amended judgment correcting the sentencing date and then entered a second amended judgment that corrected a typographical error with respect to where Rodriguez

- Salas should be incarcerated . The district court, however, was without jurisdiction to enter the amended judgment s during the pendency of this appeal because Rodriguez

- Salas ’s “notice of appeal

. . . divested the district court of jurisdiction to act under [ Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 ] .” United States v. Willis , 76 F.4th 467, 472 (5th Cir. 2023). Next, because the original judgment cites only the general statute of § 1326 and does not specify a subsection, we remand for the district court to correct the judgment to reflect that Rodriguez

- Salas was convicted and sentenced under § 1326(b)(2). See United States v. Huerta

- Rodriguez , 64 F.4th 270, 2 79

– 80 (5th Cir. 2023) ; **Fed. R. Crim. P. 36**

**. T**  he district court’s sec ond amended judgment is **VACATE D**  for lack of jurisdiction , and the case is **REMANDED** for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to correct the original judgment’s clerical error s . Case: 23-50301 Document: 58-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/19/2024
STATE v. Preston DAVIS.

No. 434P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Susan Doyle, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th day of September 2008 by Defendant for "Petition for Discretionary Review N.C. Gen.Stat. 7A-3; N.C.R.A.P.-Rule":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of December 2008."
In the Matter of A.P., a minor child.

No. 534A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2007.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ____, 634 S.E.2d 561 (2006), reversing an order entered 18 October 2004 by Judge Denise S. Hartsfield in District Court, Forsyth County, and remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing. Heard in the Supreme Court 10 April 2007.

Theresa A. Boucher, Assistant County Attorney, for petitioner-appellant Forsyth County Department of Social Services.

Katharine Chester and Richard E. Jester, Siler City, for respondent-appellee mother.

Robert T. Newman, Sr., for respondent-appellee Roy P.

Gary C. Rhodes, Salisbury, for respondent-appellant William David H.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
SCHAAP v. JOHNSON, et al.

No. 251P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Mr. James R. Demay, Concord, for Mardan II, LLC.

Kevin Schaap, Jr., for Schaap, Kevin.

Donna H. Johnson, Judge, for Hon. Donna H. Johnson West Publishing.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of July 2015 by Petitioner for Notice of Appeal:

> "Motion Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, 

v.

JUAN CARLOS PINEDA-NAVARRO, Petitioner. 

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0798 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Maricopa County

No. CR2012-009423-003 

No. CR2012-113855-001 

No. CR2012-132905-003 

No. CR2012-137892-004 

The Honorable Daniel J. Kiley, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent 

Juan Carlos Pineda-Navarro, Florence

Petitioner

FILED 4-23-2019
STATE v. PINEDA-NAVARRO

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie, Judge Randall M. Howe, and Judge 

Jennifer B. Campbell delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM: 

¶1 Petitioner Juan Carlos Pineda-Navarro review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is Pineda-Navarro’s 

second petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s burden 

to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 

2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find the petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. 

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.
# CE2004088EN.01034301.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/343 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/343

---

(2004/C 88 E/0349)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1247/03

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject:   Burmese refugees

Subject:

Is the Commission aware of the current plight of Burmese refugees inside Thailand?

Constituents have raised concerns around the Thai Government's inability to cope with the refugees and the Government's desire to close the refugee camps and return them across the border. Is the European Union providing any financial or diplomatic support to the Thai Government or the refugees to prevent a human rights disaster?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2003)

(7 May 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the situation of Burmese refugees, mainly of ethnic minority origin, sheltered in camps on the Thai-Burma border.

The Commission is currently one of the most important donors to the Burmese refugee population in Thailand. Its assistance, implemented by European non-governmental organisations (NGOs), predominantly takes the form of provision of food and basic goods teamed with medical assistance and training. During the last years the Commission has provided between EUR 7 and 7,5 million per year to these activities.

The Commission Delegation in Thailand follows the situation of the Burmese refugees very closely, through direct visits to the camps and via frequent contacts with NGOs and other organisations supporting the refugee population.

In addition, the Commission continues to have an open dialogue with the Thai authorities about the situation in the refugee camps and on its policy towards the Burmese refugees. Its concerns regarding the treatment of Burmese refugees and reports of forced deportations by Thai authorities have been raised in recent bilateral meetings, such as the Community-Thailand Senior Officials' Meeting which took place on 29 and 30 January 2003 in Brussels.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation and remains ready to take further action should the situation of the Burmese refugees deteriorate dramatically.

---
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements: (1)
Form S-8 No. 333-56987, pertaining to the 1997 Long-Term Equity Incentive Plan
and the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, (2) Form S-8 No. 333-42838, pertaining to
the 1997 Long-Term Equity Incentive Plan, (3) Form S-8 No. 333-97075, pertaining
to the 1997 Long-Term Equity Incentive Plan, (4) Form S-3 No. 333-54192,
pertaining to the registration of $150,000,000 of convertible subordinated notes
due 2005 and the registration of 5,672,160 shares of common stock, (5) Form S-3
No. 333-75646, pertaining to the registration of $172,500,000 of convertible
subordinated notes due 2008 and the registration of 6,226,767 shares of common
stock and (6) Form S-3 No. 333-86578, pertaining to the shelf registration of
$300,000,000 of debt or equity securities of Province Healthcare Company of our
report dated February 21, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Province Healthcare Company included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.



                                         /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Nashville, Tennessee
March 17, 2003
STATE v. INGRAM.

No. COA08-447.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 16, 2008.

Certification Date January 5, 2009.

Appeal from Nash (06CRS50724, 06CRS50725, 06CRS50726).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350 AS

ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Mark A. Peterson, Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Entertainment Properties Trust (the Issuer), have executed this certification for furnishing to the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the filing with the Commission of the
registrants Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report). I hereby certify that:



| | (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 Issuer.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Mark A. PetersonMark A. PetersonVice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer)


Date: February 26, 2010
STATE v. WALKER.

No. COA08-36.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 19, 2008.

Certification Date September 8, 2008.

Appeal from Rockingham (06CRS3785).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.