alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Steven Lipscomb, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of WPT Enterprises, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statements of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly 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 presentedin this quarterly report; 4. WPT Enterprises, Inc.’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for WPT Enterprises, Inc., and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to WPT Enterprises, Inc., including its subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of WPT Enterprises, Inc.’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in WPT Enterprises, Inc.’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during WPT Enterprises, Inc.’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, WPTEnterprises, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting;5. WPT Enterprises, Inc.’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to WPT Enterprises, Inc.’sauditors and the audit committee of WPT Enterprises, Inc.’s board of directors or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectWPT Enterprises, Inc.’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in WPT Enterprises, Inc.’s internal control over financialreporting.     Date: November 15, 2005 /s/Steven Lipscomb    Steven Lipscomb    President and Chief Executive Officer
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




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 of
Pure Biofuels Corp. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:
      August 16, 2010/s/
      Carlos Alberto PintoCarlos
      Alberto Pinto, Chief Executive
Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Pure Biofuels Corp. and will
be retained by Pure Biofuels Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Takila PAYNE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D01-3141.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 9, 2003.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 22, 2003.

John G. George of John G. George, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Donna L. Eng, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

KLEIN, J.

This case arises out of the death of a fourteen-month-old child who had been left in the care of appellant for several days. We affirm appellant’s conviction of manslaughter, concluding that the trial court did not err in allowing the state to strike jurors based on the explanation that the state wanted jurors who were more educated.

Appellant argues that the state, when asked for a race-neutral reason as to why it was striking certain jurors, improperly used lack of education as a justification. He contends that lack of education beyond high school could be used as a pretense to strike members of minorities. In *St.*
      *228
      *Louis v. State,*584 So.2d 180, 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) we reversed where the state had struck a juror and given the explanation that it wanted a more educated juror, but had not inquired about the juror’s education, explaining:

> [Tjhere is nothing in the facts of this case which would indicate that a particular level of education was essential to determine the issues presented. This was an armed robbery/murder with no complicated fact pattern to unravel. Thus, a review of the record indicates to us that the reason advanced by the prosecutor was a mere pretext.

Unlike the situation in *St. Louis,*the state in this case asked the relevant juror questions about her education, and also asked almost all other prospective jurors about their education. The state’s reason was that this case involved complex medical and DNA evidence regarding the cause of death, which was the key issue. Although the DNA evidence turned out not to be as complex as it would be in the typical case, because it was primarily to the effect that testing for DNA had been unsuccessful, the medical testimony as to the cause and time of death could be characterized as reasonably complex.

Although we agree with appellant’s argument that education should not be used as a pretext for striking minority jurors, our review of the record in this case leads us to conclude that the trial court’s acceptance of the explanation as being genuine is not clearly erroneous.

We have considered the other issues raised by appellant and find them to be without merit. Affirmed.

FARMER, C.J. and SHAHOOD, J., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 31, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00245

- CR

Vanessa CAMERON

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexa r County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010CR4286C The Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

App ell ant has filed a n “Objection to the Clerk’s Record and Motion to Abate Appeal in Order to Supplement Clerk’s Record.” In the motion, appellant asserts that the clerk’s record does not contain all the sealed motions filed by her trial counsel and ruled on by the trial court, including a motion seekin g funds for the retainer and travel of an expert witness the denial of

which she represents will be an issue on appeal. Appellant asks this court to abate the appeal and

instruct the trial court to conduct a hearing and determine whether the missing motions and

related orders are lost or destroyed, and if so, whether they may be replaced by agreement of the partie s or with an accurate copy or duplicate. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.5(e). The State did not file a response opposing the motion. The appellant’s motion is GRANTED.

Accordingly, this appeal is ABATED for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this

o rder, and the trial court is ORDERED to conduct a hearing and make written findings of fact determining whether: (1) any sealed motions and related orders have been lost or destroyed, (2) the missing pleadings are necessary to the appeal’s resolution, and if so, (3) whether the lost or destroyed pleadings can be replaced by agreement of the parties or with a n accurate copy of the missing pleading (s)

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34. 5 ( e ).

The trial court clerk is ORDE RED to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s written findings and any previously omitted sealed motions and related orders in this

court within thirty days from the date of this order. The trial court clerk is ORDERED to file the

s upplemental clerk’s record under seal in this court

._________________________________ Liz a A. Rodrig uez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 31st day of March, 2020

.

___________________________________ M ichael A . C ruz
, Clerk of Court
STATE of North Carolina v. Chris Lee ROBERTSON

No. COA17-199

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 3, 2017

NO ERROR.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Alvin PATTERSON, Appellant.

No. ED 80844.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

June 17, 2003.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 13, 2003.

Owenda R. Robinson, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen. & Dora A. Fichter, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, Jr., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., GLENN A. NORTON, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Alvin Patterson, appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts of forcible rape, two counts of felonious restraint, and three counts of unlawful use of a weapon. Defendant was sentenced ten years imprisonment for each forcible rape conviction, five years for each felonious restraint conviction, five years each for two of the unlawful use of a weapon convictions, and three years for the third unlawful use of a weapon conviction, with the sentences to be served consecutively. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The parties, however, have been provided with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
STATE v. Quintel Martinez AUGUSTINE

130A03-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 18, 2018

Ms. Gretchen Engel, Durham, Attorney at Law, for Augustine, Quintel Martinez

Mr. James E. Ferguson, II, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Augustine, Quintel Martinez

Ms. Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Mr. Jonathan P. Babb, Raleigh, Special Counsel to Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Mr. Grady Jessup, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Association of Black Lawyers

Ms. Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Attorney at Law, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP

Mr. Irving Joyner, Durham, Attorney at Law, for N.C. State Conference of the NAACP

Mr. Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists

Ms. Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for National Association for Public Defense

Mr. Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Professors John Charles Boger & Robert P. Mosteller

Mr. Carlos E. Mahoney, Durham, Attorney at Law, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Ms. Jin Hee Lee, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Mr. W. Kerrel Murray, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.

Ms. Cynthia F. Adcock, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Council of Churches

Mr. Burton Craige, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Advocates for Justice

Mr. Jeremy M. Falcone, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Former State and Federal Prosecutors

Mr. William R. West, District Attorney, for State

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of July 2018 by NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. to Not Require the Payment of Additional Pro Hac Vice Fees:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of July 2018."

Ervin, J. recused
REGENCY CENTERS ACQUISITION, LLC v. CRESCENT ACQUISTIONS, LLC

134A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 13, 2018

Mark E. Anderson, Tracy S. DeMarco, Raleigh, Attorneys at Law, for Regency Centers Acquisitions, LLC

Kiran H. Mehta, Sara S. Ash, Attorneys at Law, Charlotte, for Crescent Acquisitions, LLC

*357The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 11th of July 2018 by Plaintiff:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of July 2018."

Plaintiff shall have up to and including the 13th day of August 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
Form of Note Payable OID


EXHIBIT 10.3




PROMISSORY NOTE

		
	Borrower:

	Information Systems Associates of 819 SW Federal Highway, Suite 206, Stuart, FL 34994 (individually and collectively the "Borrower")


	Lender:

	______________







Principal Amount:

$__________


1.

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, The Borrower promises to pay to Sherri L. Halpert at such address as may be provided in writing to the Borrower, the principal sum of ten thousand ($________) USD, including original issue discount interest at the rate of __ percent per month in advance.


2.

This note is due and payable in full on or before ___________.


3.

At any time while not in default under this Note, the Borrower may pay the outstanding balance then owing under this Note to ________________________without further bonus or penalty.


4.

This Note will be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Florida.


5.

If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Note is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, it is the parties' intent that such provision be reduced in scope by the court only to the extent deemed necessary by that court to render the provision reasonable and enforceable and the remainder of the provisions of this Note will in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated as a result.


6.

All costs, expenses and expenditures including, and without limitation, the complete legal costs incurred by ___________________ enforcing this Note as a result of any default by the Borrower, will be added to the principal then outstanding and will immediately be paid by the Borrower. 


7.

This Note will enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Borrower and______________________. The Borrower waives presentment for payment, notice of non-payment, protest and notice of protest.


8.

This Note is secured by the following security (the 'Security'): Receivables from professional services contracts which have been factored and will be paid when received from the factoring entity.


9.

The Borrower grants to ______________a security interest in the Security until this Note is paid in full. ________________will be listed as a lender on the title of the Security whether or not ______________ elects to perfect the security interest in the Security.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF Information Systems Associates has duly affixed its signature by a duly authorized officer under seal on this__________________.




SIGNED, SEALED, AND DELIVERED.

				
	 
	Information Systems Associates

	 

	 
	per: 

	 
	(SEAL)
STATE of North Carolina v. David Lance COOK, Defendant.

No. COA17-610

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 5, 2017

DISMISSED.
EX-10.4(l)



 Exhibit 10.4(l) 
 AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT 
 Masonite International Corporation (the
“Company”), formerly Masonite Worldwide Holdings Inc., and the Participant, as defined in the Agreement and set forth below, (collectively referred to as the “Parties”) entered into a Restricted Stock Unit Agreement dated
December 12, 2009 (the “Agreement”). The parties have herein agreed to amend the Agreement to modify the vesting dates effective as of October 31, 2012. 

 

	 	1.	For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by the Parties, the Parties hereby amend the Agreement and replace
paragraph 4(a) in its entirety with the following: 

  

	 	a.	General. Subject to Section 4(b) and Section 15.18 of the Plan, the Company shall deliver to the Participant (i) fifty percent (50%) of
the aggregate Shares underlying outstanding vested RSUs within thirty (30) days of November 1, 2012 and (ii) fifty percent (50%) of the aggregate Shares underlying outstanding vested RSUs within thirty (30) days of
November 1, 2013; provided, however, all Shares underlying vested RSUs, to the extent not previously delivered, shall be delivered to the Participant upon a Change in Control. In connection with the delivery of the Shares pursuant to this
Agreement, the Participant agrees to execute any documents reasonably requested by the Company. In no event shall a Participant be entitled to receive any Shares with respect to any unvested or forfeited portion of the RSU.


  

	 	2.	The defined terms and conditions used in this Amendment shall have the same meaning as those set forth in the Agreement. 


 

	 	3.	The remaining terms and conditions contained in the Agreement shall continue to have full force and effect. 


 

	 	4.	This Amendment together with the Agreement and the Plan contain the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter contained herein, and
supersedes all prior agreements or prior understandings, whether written or oral, between the parties relating to such subject matter. This Agreement may be further modified or amended by a writing signed by both the Company and the Participant.


 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. 

 



			
	Masonite International Corporation
		
	By: 	 	 


Printed Name: 
 Title: 

 




			
	Participant
		
	By:	 	 


			
		
	Printed Name:
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT-GRANT THORNTON LLP

Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

We have issued our report dated January 25, 2002 accompanying the
consolidated financial statements incorporated by reference in the Annual
Report of Massachusetts Fincorp, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-KSB for
the year ended December 31, 2001. We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said report in the Registration Statements of Massachusetts
Fincorp, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No. 333-62374, effective
June 6, 2001).


                                       /s/ Grant Thornton LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 25, 2002
#### Kelly S. CASTELLO, Claimant/Appellant, v. STANDARD MACHINE AND DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondents.

No. ED 83080.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Sept. 2, 2003.

*684Kelly Castello, St. Louis, pro se.

Ronald Joe Miller, Jefferson City, MO, for Division of Employment Security.

Larry Raymond Ruhmann, St. Louis, MO, for Standard Machine *&*Manufacturing Company.

SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, Chief Judge.

Kelly S. Castello (Claimant) appeals the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s (Commission) order denying her application for review as untimely. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

On July 30, 2002, a deputy of the Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant was disqualified from unemployment benefits because she left work without good cause attributable to her work or employer. Claimant filed a timely appeal with the Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed the deputy’s determination. The Appeals Tribunal mailed this decision to Claimant on October 3, 2002. Over seven months later, on May 1, 2003, Claimant filed an application for review with the Commission. The Commission denied Claimant’s application for review because it was untimely. Claimant appeals to this Court.

In response to Claimant’s appeal, the Division has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The Division contends that Claimant’s untimely appeal to the Commission divested both the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction to consider her appeal. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion.

Section 288.2001 gives a claimant thirty (30) days after the mailing of the Appeals Tribunal decision to file an application for review with the Commission. Here, the Appeals Tribunal mailed its decision to Claimant on October 3, 2002. Claimant filed her application for review with the Commission over seven months later, on May 1, 2003. Therefore, Claimant’s application for review was untimely.

Claimant’s failure to file her application for review with the Commission in a timely fashion divested the Commission and this Court of jurisdiction. *McAtee v. Bio-Medical Applications of Missouri, Inc.,*87 S.W.3d 894, 895 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). In addition, there is no mechanism under Section 288.200 for a special order to file a late application for review. *Id.*Without jurisdiction, this Court must grant the Division’s motion to dismiss. Claimant’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, JJ., concur.

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo.2000, unless otherwise indicated.
STATE of North Carolina v. Samuel Tyler POTTER

No. 22P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

Edward Eldred, Attorney at Law, for Potter, Samuel Tyler.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Scott E. Thomas, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 19th of February 2018 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."
Exhibit 4.4. Terms of Type B Warrants


 


Type B warrants are issued as a bonus to the members,
automatically exercised in the case of the Company going public on a one share for one share basis, no additional consideration.
In case of the Company failing to go public, the warrants are not exercisable for stock nor are they refundable.
IN RE: Olander R. BYNUM

109P17-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Olander R. Bynum, For Bynum, Olander R.

Joseph Finarelli, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

Ben R. David, District Attorney, for the State of North Carolina.

*879The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of December 2017 by Petitioner for Reconsideration:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."
Exhibit 32.1

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

 

In connection with the amended Annual Report of Highwoods Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward J. Fritsch, President and Chief Executive 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:

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

|   | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| /s/ EDWARDJ.FRITSCH                                    |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Edward J. FritschPresident and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| March 4, 2008                                |   |