alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, James R. Kupferschmid, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kitty Hawk, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     August 14, 2006 By: /s/ JAMES R. KUPFERSCHMID         James R. Kupferschmid    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 11, 2005.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis**                     (Glenda Wilson, Community Affairs Officer) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:                

*1. The First Bank of Raymond Employee Stock Ownership Plan*, Raymond, Illinois, individually, and as a control group with its trustees, Patricia L. Clarke, Farmersville, Illinois; Larry J. Herron, Girard, Illinois; and Neil T. Jordon, Morrisonville, Illinois, to retain control of Raymond Bancorp, Inc., Raymond, Illinois.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 20, 2005.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 05-19134 Filed 9-23-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
# C_2008272EN.01001701.xml

| 25.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/17

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Evropaïki Dinamiki v Commission

(Case T-59/05) (1)

1

(Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Provision of development, maintenance and support services for the financial information systems of the Directorate-General for Agriculture - Selection and award criteria - Rejection of a submitted tender - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - No manifest error of assessment - Principles of diligence and good administration)

(2008/C 272/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Evropaïki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented: initially by K. Banks and E. Manhaeve, and subsequently by E. Manhaeve and M. Wilderspin, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the Commission of 23 November 2004 rejecting the bid filed by the applicant in the tendering procedure for the provision of computer and related services linked to the information systems of the Directorate-General for Agriculture and of the decision of the Commission to award the contract to another bidder.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being unfounded.

| 2. | The Commission shall bear its own costs and shall pay one fifth of the costs incurred by Evropaïki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission shall bear its own costs and shall pay one fifth of the costs incurred by Evropaïki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE.

| 3. | Evropaïki Dinamiki shall bear four fifths of its costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Evropaïki Dinamiki shall bear four fifths of its costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

1

---
Exhibit 10.3 Q3 FY2014






        
TWENTY- EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This Twenty-Eighth Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of March 1, 2014, by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Employer") and Thomas Martin ("Executive").


Recitals


		
	A)
	On March 31, 1998 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive. 




		
	B)
	Said Employment Agreement has been amended on twenty-seven prior occasions;




		
	C)
	Employer and Executive now desire to amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow:


Agreement 




1.    Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement, which provides:


3.1    Term.  The term of Executive's employment hereunder shall commence on April 1, 1998 and shall continue until March 31, 2014 unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided (the "Employment Term").




is hereby amended, effective as of March 1, 2014, to provide as follows:




3.1    Term.  The term of Executive's employment hereunder shall commence on April 1, 1998 and shall continue until March 31, 2015 unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided (the "Employment Term").




		
	2.
	All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective.






Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above.




EXECUTIVE                            EMPLOYER
PriceSmart, INC.


Thomas Martin                    By: ___________________


______________________            Name: Jose Luis Laparte    


Its: CEO & President
STATE of North Carolina v. Gregory Aldon PERKINS.

No. 332PA14.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 25, 2015.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Amy Kunstling Irene, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Glenn Gerding, Chapel Hill, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.

**Opinion**

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous, unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, --- N.C.App. ----, 763 S.E.2d 928 (2014), finding no error after appeal from judgments entered on 4 December 2012 by Judge Paul G. Gessner in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 31 August 2015.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-20284

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL D. GOODSON, also known as Mike Goodson,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CR-98-1

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael D. Goodson, federal prisoner # 02492-088, was convicted in 2007

of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, three counts of mail fraud, and five

counts of wire fraud, and he is serving a 293-month sentence. He now appeals

the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial under Rule 33 of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We review the denial of his motion for

abuse of discretion. See United States v. Turner, 674 F.3d 420, 429 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 302 (2012).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 29, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-20284 Document: 00512357549 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2013
No. 12-20284

A district court judge opined in an attorney admissions proceeding in 2011

that Goodson’s paid trial counsel had been unfairly prevented from practicing

before the district court in 2007. Goodson contends that this 2011 decision

constitutes newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial.

To form the basis for a new trial, newly discovered evidence must be,

among other things, material to the guilt or innocence of the defendant except

when the newly discovered evidence is evidence of jury tampering or a Brady1

violation. United States v. Medina, 118 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 1997). The

judge’s recommendation in an admissions proceeding is not material to

Goodson’s guilt or innocence, nor is it evidence of jury tampering or a Brady

violation. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it

denied Goodson’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial.

AFFIRMED.

1 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 86-87 (1963).

2

 Case: 12-20284 Document: 00512357549 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2013
# C_2008301EN.01002901.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of 4 August 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Cyprus

(Case C-490/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 301/44)

Language of the case: Greek

Language of the case: Greek

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

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3811 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3811

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 13, 2014

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To require notification of individuals of breaches of personally 
identifiable information through Exchanges under the Patient Protection 
                        and Affordable Care Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Health Exchange Security and 
Transparency Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS OF BREACHES OF PERSONALLY 
              IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION THROUGH PPACA EXCHANGES.

    Not later than two business days after the discovery of a breach of 
security of any system maintained by an Exchange established under 
section 1311 or 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
(42 U.S.C. 18031, 18041) which is known to have resulted in personally 
identifiable information of an individual being stolen or unlawfully 
accessed, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide 
notice of such breach to each such individual.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 10, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CPIInternational, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December29, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, O. Joe Caldarelli, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2) The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ O. Joe Caldarelli   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| O. Joe Caldarelli       |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| February 12, 2007       |

 

----
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00207-CR

Emanuel Camacho GOMEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CR-7391

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 19, 2010

DISMISSED

Appellant Emanuel Camacho Gomez pleaded nolo contendere to the offense of murder

pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. The trial court imposed sentence in accordance with the plea

agreement, and signed a certificate stating that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO

right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. The

clerk’s record, which includes the plea bargain agreement and the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2)
04-10-00207-CR

-2-

certification, has been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). This court must dismiss an appeal “if a

certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.”

Id.

The court gave appellant notice that the appeal would be dismissed unless an amended trial

court certification showing he has the right to appeal were made part of the appellate record within

thirty days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.–San

Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet.

ref’d) (not designated for publication). Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a written

response, stating she has reviewed the record and can find no right of appeal. After reviewing the

record and counsel’s notice, we agree appellant does not have a right to appeal. See Dears v. State,

154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should review clerk’s record

to determine whether trial court’s certification is accurate). We therefore dismiss this appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). 

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**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 Quarterly Report of Innocap, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jimmy B. Holton, Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that to my knowledge:





|1. | The
              Report fully complies with 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.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




/s/
      Jimmy
      B. Holton


By:
      Jimmy
      B. Holton


Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Date:
      January 30, 2006
# C_2008037EN.01001002.xml

| 9.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 22 November 2007 — Dinter GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

(Case C-522/07)

(2008/C 37/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dinter GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Is additional note 5(b) to Chapter 20 of the Combined Nomenclature (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘fruit juices with added sugar’ also refers to fruit juices to which no sugar has actually been added, but whose added sugar content is calculated mathematically in accordance with additional note 5(a) to Chapter 20 of the Combined Nomenclature? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is additional note 5(b) to Chapter 20 of the Combined Nomenclature (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘fruit juices with added sugar’ also refers to fruit juices to which no sugar has actually been added, but whose added sugar content is calculated mathematically in accordance with additional note 5(a) to Chapter 20 of the Combined Nomenclature?

1

| 2. | Is additional note 5(b) to Chapter 20 of the Combined Nomenclature to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘fruit juices in their natural state’ is merely clarified by the words ‘obtained from fruits or by dilution of concentrated juice’, but in fact applies to all types of fruit juices (not cooked and without added alcohol) in the state in which they are presented? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is additional note 5(b) to Chapter 20 of the Combined Nomenclature to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘fruit juices in their natural state’ is merely clarified by the words ‘obtained from fruits or by dilution of concentrated juice’, but in fact applies to all types of fruit juices (not cooked and without added alcohol) in the state in which they are presented?

| 3. | If both the preceding questions are answered in the affirmative, is additional note 5(b) to Chapter 20 of the Combined Nomenclature valid? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If both the preceding questions are answered in the affirmative, is additional note 5(b) to Chapter 20 of the Combined Nomenclature valid?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1).

1

---
State v. William Gerald Price

133P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Mr. William Gerald Price, Pro Se.

Mr. Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Tom Horner, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of September 2016 by Defendant for Request to Clarify:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 10.29

                                Amendment to the
                   Key Executive Life Insurance/Death Benefit
                 Plan of The Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB

                           Effective November 20, 1997

      The Key Executive Life Insurance/Death Benefit Plan of The Dime Savings
Bank of New York, FSB (the "Plan") is hereby amended, as of the date set forth
above, as follows:

      1. Section 1.11 of the Plan is amended to provide as follows:

            "1.11 'Retirement' means (i) the date of the Participant's
      termination of service with the Bank after his or her Early Retirement Age
      (as defined in the Retirement Plan) or otherwise on or after both
      attaining age 55 and after completing a Period of Service (as defined in
      the Retirement Plan) of at least 5 years, whether or not otherwise
      eligible for early or normal retirement under the Retirement Plan, and
      (ii) for Participants whose termination of service is not described in
      clause (i) above, the later of the date of the Participant's termination
      of service with the Bank or the attaining of age 65."

      2. The first sentence of Section 6.1 of the Plan is amended to provide as
follows:

      "A Participant shall be 100% vested in his or her death benefits (pursuant
      to Section 5.3) upon the Participant's termination of service described in
      clause (i) of the definition of Retirement."

      3. The language of the sixth sentence of Section 6.1 of the Plan preceding
the colon therein is amended to provide as follows:

      "If the Participant terminates employment with the Bank where his
      termination of employment does not satisfy the provisions of clause (i) of
      the definition of Retirement, and except as otherwise provided in the
      second sentence of this Section 6.1, the Participant's death benefit shall
      vest in accordance with the following vesting schedule:"
STATE of North Carolina v. Kevon Abrian GARRISON, Defendant.

No. COA16-565

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

NO ERROR.