alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1
 MAKEMUSIC, INC.
2003 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
(AS AMENDED THROUGH NOVEMBER 24, 2008)
 SECTION 1.  DEFINITIONS
       The Wall Street Journal




---



##### 



-2-




---



##### 



SECTION 2.  PURPOSE
   SECTION 3.  EFFECTIVE DATE OF PLAN
  SECTION 4.  ADMINISTRATION
 -3-




---



##### 



SECTION 5.  PARTICIPANTS
  -4-




---



##### 



SECTION 6.  STOCK
  SECTION 7.  DURATION OF PLAN
  SECTION 8.  PAYMENT
  -5-




---



##### 



SECTION 9.  TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF INCENTIVE STOCK OPTIONS
  Number of Shares and Option Price
 Term and Exercisability of Incentive Stock Option
  -6-




---



##### 



Nontransferability
 No Rights as Shareholder
 Withholding
 Other Provisions
 -7-




---



##### 



SECTION 10.  TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTIONS
  Number of Shares and Option Price
 Term and Exercisability of Nonqualified Stock Option
 Transferability
 No Rights as Shareholder
 Withholding
 -8-




---



##### 



Other Provisions
 SECTION 11.  RESTRICTED STOCK AND RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARDS
  Number of Shares
 Risks of Forfeiture or Vesting
  -9-




---



##### 



Issuance of Shares; Rights as Shareholder
   Withholding Taxes
 -10-




---



##### 



Nontransferability
 Other Provisions
 Delay of Payment for Section 162(m)
 -11-




---



##### 



Limitation on Restricted Stock or Restricted Stock Units
 SECTION 12.  PERFORMANCE AWARDS
  Awards
 Performance Goals, Performance Period and Payment
      -12-




---



##### 



Regulatory Compliance
 Withholding Taxes
 Nontransferability
 No Rights as Shareholder
 Other Provisions
 SECTION 13.  STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHTS
  -13-




---



##### 



Awards
 Term and Exercisability
 Withholding Taxes
 -14-




---



##### 



Nontransferability
 No Rights as Shareholder
 Other Provisions
 SECTION 14.  RECAPITALIZATION, SALE, MERGER, EXCHANGE OR LIQUIDATION
     -15-




---



##### 



SECTION 15.  INVESTMENT PURPOSE
  -16-




---



##### 



SECTION 16.  AMENDMENT OF THE PLAN
  -17-




---



##### 



SECTION 17.  NO OBLIGATION TO EXERCISE OPTION
  -18-
Exhibit 31.1

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATION

Principal Executive Officer & Principal Financial Officer

I, Robert M. Baker, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report of Sterling Gold Corp.;

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; and

c)  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 quarterly 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 the 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 control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



|Date: January 4, 2005 | /s/ Robert M. Baker                                 
|--------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------
|                      | Robert M. Baker                                     
|                      | President, Principal Executive Officer and Principal
|                      | Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>
      This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's audited financial statements for the six months ended February 28,
1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                  1,544
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                              12
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        1,609
<PP&E>                                    299
<DEPRECIATION>                            32
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          1,899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     756
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                  500
<OTHER-SE>                                528
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            1,899
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        7,177
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           6,728
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           449
<INCOME-TAX>                              180
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       269
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              269
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.05
        

</TABLE>
In re: Forclosure of: Maine

226P16-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

Betty Farmer Maine, for Maine, Betty Farmer, et al.

W. Chris Parnell, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Morrison Trustee Services, LLC.

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

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 19 / 06–1198 

Filed October 10, 2008 

JOEL A. HARPER and KATHY L. HARPER, 

 Appellants, 

vs. 

PELLA CORPORATION, 

 Appellee. 

 On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. 

 Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Gary G. 

Kimes and John D. Lloyd, Judges. 

 Plaintiffs appeal district court’s grant of summary judgment in 

favor of defendant on their premises-liability claim, and defendant crossappeals district court’s denial of summary judgment on statute-oflimitations grounds. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AND 

DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

 Robert A. Wright, Jr. of Wright and Wright, Des Moines, for 

appellants. 

 Ross W. Johnson and Carolyn A. Gunkel of Faegre & Benson LLP, 

Des Moines, for appellee. 

 
2 

PER CURIAM. 

Iowa resident Joel Harper and his wife, appellant Kathy Harper, 

brought this premises-liability lawsuit against Pella Corporation for 

injuries sustained by Joel Harper when he fell in a house owned by Pella 

and located in Kentucky. Pella moved for summary judgment, 

contending Kentucky’s one-year statute of limitations should apply to 

bar this action, which was filed more than one year after the incident 

occurred. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 413.140(1)(a) (West 2003). The 

plaintiffs argued Iowa’s two-year limitations period governed. See Iowa 

Code § 614.1(2) (2003). The district court (Judge Kimes) determined 

Iowa’s statute applied and denied summary judgment. Pella moved for 

summary judgment again, this time contending the plaintiffs failed to 

generate a genuine issue of material fact on the liability issue. The 

district court (Judge Lloyd) granted Pella’s motion, concluding there was 

no evidence from which a jury could find that a dangerous condition 

existed at the time Harper fell, and therefore, Pella was entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. 

 The plaintiffs appealed the district court’s dismissal of their 

lawsuit, and Pella cross-appealed the court’s denial of summary 

judgment on the basis the Harpers’ lawsuit was untimely. The case was 

transferred to the court of appeals. That court affirmed the district 

court’s dismissal of the case on liability grounds and did not reach the 

statute-of-limitations issue raised in Pella’s cross-appeal. This court 

granted further review. 

The members of the court taking part in the decision being equally 

divided on the plaintiffs’ appeal, the court declares the decision of the 
3 

district court is affirmed by operation of law.1 See Iowa Code § 602.4107 

(2007). This decision makes it unnecessary to consider the defendant’s 

cross-appeal. 

DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AND DISTRICT COURT 

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

All justices concur except Baker, J., who takes no part. 

 This is not a published opinion. 

 1Ternus, C.J., and Cady and Appel, JJ., would affirm; Streit, Wiggins, and 

Hecht, JJ., would reverse.
Terriel L. Mack, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 20, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on April 28, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable William H. Seals be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Seals shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Seals shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

## IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-31036
WEYERHAEUSER CO Plaintiff-Appellee v. PETRO-HUNT LLC Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:04-CV-2177 Before KING, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### The order appealed from being a case-management order, rather than an injunction, jurisdiction for this appeal is lacking. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). DISMISSED. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D March 26, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk