alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

I, Ronald H. Miller, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings, Inc.;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a.                                     Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

b.                                    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c.                                     Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

----

a.                                     All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.                                    Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  August 10, 2007

/s/  Ronald H. Miller            

Ronald H. Miller

President, Chief Executive Officer

andDirector

 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Roddarius Markee HOPPER, Defendant.

No. COA18-558

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: January 15, 2019

NO ERROR.
## F IFTH 

## D ISTRIC T 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE O F 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 20 23-28 0 8 LT Case No

. 20 22

- DP -001413-X

_____________________________ S.B., M OTHER OF J.S.B., A C HILD , Appellant,

v. S .B. AND C.B., Appellee s.

_____________________________
On a ppeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County. Kelly J. McKib ben, Judge

. Richard F. Joyce, Special Assistant Regional Counsel, of Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Casselberry, for Appellant. Geoffrey P. Golub, of Geoffrey P. Golub, P.A., Melbourne, an d Kelley Schaeffer , of Children’s Legal Services, Brad enton, for Appellees.
Sara Elizabeth Gold farb, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Laura J. Lee, Assistant Director of Appeals , of the Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, and Morgan Lyle Weinstein, of T wig Trade & Tribu nal, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale , for Guardian Ad Litem. April 1 8 , 2024
P ER C URIAM

.2 A FFIRMED

. W ALLIS , E ISNAUGLE , and K ILBANE , , JJ., concur
.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331
.

_____________________________
TRUSTEE SERVICE OF CAROLINA, Benjamin Barco, Brock and Scott v. Chilove-Chery SAIMPLICE

No. 207P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Chilove-Chery Saimplice, for Samiplice, Chilove-Chery.

Brian M. Rowlson, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Trustee Service of Carolina, et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 6th of July 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 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 14th of August 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of July 2018 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00587-CR

Quinton Cox TDCJ#1624099

v.

The State of Texas

On appeal from the

156th District Court of Bee County, Texas

Trial Cause No. B-16-M0180-0-PR-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 14, 2018
# t¥46-/6 ELECTRONIC RECORD COA# 02-16-00218-CR OFFENSE: 49.04 Luis A. Cervantes v. The State of 

## STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Tarrant COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: Criminal District Court No. 4 

### DATE: 12/08/16 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 1433251D



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS Luis A. Cervantes v. The State of 

## STYLE: Texas 

# APPS/^AMT7** Petition FOR DISCRETIONARYREVIEW IN CCAIS: DATE: 

# 3£Se JUDGE: ftP\ L4M^_ CCA#: 

# ;»»6"/fe CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH:
REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: 

### PC:_ DNP:

MOTION FOR


### ELECTRONIC RECORD
STATE of North Carolina v. Marvin Louis MILLER, Jr.

No. 268P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

Leslie C. Rawls, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Miller, Marvin Louis (Jr.).

James D. Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, Trey Robison, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the Petition for Discretionary Review filed by the State on 11 September 2018, the Petition is ALLOWED for the limited purpose of remanding to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of *State v. Rogers,* --- N.C. ----, ----, 817 S.E.2d 150 (2018).

By Order of this Court in Conference, this 5th day of December, 2018.
#### In the Interest of: E.K.M. and L.K.M. L.K.M., Appellant, and Appellant, v. Audrain County Juvenile Office, Respondent.

Nos. ED 81572, ED 81579.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

June 10, 2003.

Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 24, 2003.

Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 26, 2003.

Edward M. Berg, Columbia, MO, for appellant L.K.M.

J. Kevin Hamlett, Mexico, MO, for appellant J.D.M.

Carla Wood Tanzey, Randall P. Baker, Mexico, for Guardian Ad Litem.

Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, C.J., and WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

L.K.M. (Mother) appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two daughters, E.K.M. and L.K.M. arguing the evidence does not support termination under Section 211.447.2(1) and (2), RSMo 2000, or Section 211.447.4(1), (2), and (3), RSMo 2000, and that termination was not in either child’s best interest. J.D.M. (Father) also appeals the termination of his parental rights to E.K.M. and L.K.M, arguing the termination was not supported by substantial evidence under the same statutes. Because we find substantial evidence supported the trial court’s determination that the conditions for termination were met and that termination was in the children’s best interests, we affirm.

We . have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parities have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
STATE of North Carolina v. Sydney Shakur MERCER

No. 257PA18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018.

Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Daniel O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

Daniel K. Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, Sydney Shakur Mercer, for Mercer, Sydney Shakur.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 21st of August 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of December 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of September 2018 by State of NC 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:

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
#### State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeremy T. Greer, Defendant-Respondent.

Supreme Court

*No. 01-2591-CR.*

*Oral argument January 21, 2003.*

Decided *March 25, 2003.*

2003 WI 20

(Also reported in 658 N.W.2d 795.)

*44For the plaintiff-appellant there were briefs and oral argument by *David J. Becker,*assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was *James E. Doyle,*attorney general.

For the defendant-respondent there was a brief and oral argument by *Donna L. Hintze,*assistant state public defender.

PER CURIAM.

¶ 1. The court is equally divided on whether to affirm or reverse the judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee County. Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, and Justice David T. Prosser would affirm. Justice William A. Bablitch, Justice N. Patrick Crooks, and Justice Diane S. Sykes would reverse. Justice Jon P Wilcox did not participate.

¶ 2. When a certification or bypass results in a tie vote by this court, the better course of action is to vacate our decision to accept certification or bypass and remand the cause to the court of appeals. *State v. Watson,*209 Wis. 2d 281, 562 N.W.2d 151 (1997) (remanding to court of appeals on a tie vote on certification); *State v. Richard Knutson, Inc.,*191 Wis. 2d 395, 396-97, 528 N.W.2d 430 (1995).

¶ 3. Accordingly, we vacate our order granting certification and remand to the court of appeals.

*45
      *By the Court.*— The order granting certification is vacated and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                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 Cyber  Merchants  Exchange,  Inc.  Annual Report on Form
10-KSB  for the year  ended  June  30,  2004 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Frank S. Yuan, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that, to
the best of my knowledge:

       (1)    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 such Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB
              fairly presents in all material  respects the financial  condition
              and results of operations of the Company.

By:  /s/ Frank S. Yuan
     -------------------------
         Frank S. Yuan
Chief Financial Officer and Director
September 23, 2004

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 CYBER MERCHANTS EXCHANGE, INC. AND
WILL BE  RETAINED  BY  CYBER  MERCHANTS  EXCHANGE,  INC.  AND  FURNISHED  TO THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
STATE v. Gabriel THABET

365A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

Katherine Whitney Dickinson-Schultz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Thabet, Gabriel Arthur.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender.

J. Rick Brown, Associate Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of November 2018 by State of NC to Dismiss the Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of December 2018."
Unassociated Document






  





  










 





  






Exhibit 10.28



ACXIOM CORPORATION NON-QUALIFIED DEFERRAL PLAN


(Effective January 1, 2009)


 


FIRST AMENDMENT


 


Pursuant to Section 6.3 of the Acxiom Corporation Non-Qualified Deferral Plan (the “Plan”), as amended and restated effective January 1, 2009, Acxiom Corporation (the “Company”) hereby amends and restates Section 3.2 of the Plan effective July 1, 2009 as follows:


 



	
3.2  

	
Matching Contributions







 


No matching contributions will be required with respect to Participant’s Salary Reduction Contributions or Participant’s Deferred Compensation withheld on or after July 1, 2009.


 


For each Plan Year, until a Participant’s Deferred Compensation (as defined in the Retirement Savings Plan) is limited under the Retirement Savings Plan by reason of Code Section 401(a)(7), 402(g) or 415, the Employer may make matching contributions for each payroll period to a Participant’s Account under the Plan equal to:


 



	
  

	
(a)

	
A percentage of the Participant’s Salary Reduction Contributions withheld under Section 3.1 hereof plus the Participant’s Deferred Compensation withheld under the Retirement Savings Plan as determined by the Board of Directors of the Employer or a properly authorized committee of the Board for the Plan Year, minus







 



	
  

	
(b)

	
the matching contribution allocated to the Participant’s account under the Retirement Savings Plan on account of the amounts deferred under subsection (a).







 


Once a Participant’s Deferred Compensation under the Retirement Savings Plan is limited by reason of Code Section 401(a)(17), 402(g) or 415, the Participant shall be ineligible for the matching contribution hereunder but shall instead receive the contribution under the Non-Qualified Matching Contribution Plan as described therein.


 


The determination as to whether a matching  contribution will be made is in the sole discretion of the Board of Directors of the Employer or a properly authorized committee of the Board, determined in its sole discretion.


 


The Employer will not make an employer matching contribution to the Plan under this Section 3.2 unless the Employer makes a contribution under a substantially similar formula to the Retirement Savings Plan.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment is executed as of the 25th day of June, 2009.


 




 



	 	 	ACXIOM CORPORATION 
 

	 	 
	 Attest: /s/ Catherine L. Hughes	 	
By  /s/ Cindy K. Childers

	 	 
	 	 	 Name  Cindy K. Childers	 	 
	 	 	 Title  Senior Vice President - Human Resources
EXHIBIT 11

              Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

                For the Years Ended June 30, 2000, 1999 and 1998

                (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                      For the Year Ended June 30,
                                                                       -------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            2000                   1999               1998
                                                                       --------------        --------------       ------------
<S>                                                                         <C>                 <C>                 <C>
Net income............................................................         $12,870             $11,457             $11,198
                                                                          ============         ===========         ===========
Number of shares outstanding:
  Weighted average shares issued......................................      11,899,842          11,899,349          11,900,000
  Less:  Weighted average shares held in treasury.....................       3,261,279           2,896,595           2,268,513
  Less:  Average shares held by the ESOP..............................         952,000             952,000             952,000
  Plus:  ESOP shares released or committed to be
              released during the fiscal year.........................         451,541             357,421             269,870
                                                                           -----------         -----------         -----------
         Average basic shares.........................................       8,138,104           8,408,175           8,949,357
  Plus:  Average common stock equivalents.............................         444,409             470,316             740,298
                                                                           -----------         -----------         -----------

         Average diluted shares.......................................       8,582,513           8,878,491           9,689,655
                                                                            ==========          ==========          ==========




Earnings per common share:
         Basic........................................................           $1.58               $1.36              $1.25
                                                                         =============       =============      =============
         Diluted......................................................           $1.50               $1.29              $1.16
                                                                         =============       =============      =============
</TABLE>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

April 13, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-15771

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00021-CR-4-RH-WCS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

JEREMY LEAL, 

a.k.a. Jessey Leal, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(April 13, 2006)

Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Chet Kaufman, appointed counsel for Jeremy Leal, has moved to withdraw

from further representation of Leal, because, in his opinion, the appeal is without

merit. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87

S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Independent review of the entire record

reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. 

Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of

merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Leal’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Derrick Devon PIERCE

No. COA18-358

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 20, 2018

NO ERROR.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 0776

_____________________________
J OHNNY W ALTHOUR , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark Borello , Judge

. October 23, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OBERTS , R AY , and W INSOR , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____ ________________________2 Johnny Walthour, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### L.S. HUCKABAY, M.D. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC. v. KPMG PEAT MARWICK, LLP, Donald H. Leblanc, Jr., and J. Mark Garrett.

No. 2003-C-1400.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

*647In re L.S. Huckabay M.D. Memorial Hospital Inc.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Red River, 39th Judicial District Court Div. 0, No. 30,371; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 36,775-CA.

Denied.