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



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of General Nutrition Centers, Inc.;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(s) 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 annual 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(s) 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.
 May 5, 2006
    
    /s/ Joseph M. FortunatoJoseph M. FortunatoChief Executive Officer
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Bruce GEORGE, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 80762.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

June 30, 2003.

*225Edward Scott Thompson, Public Defenders Office, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

John Munson Morris III, Anne Edging-ton, Attorney General’s Office, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, and GLENN A. NORTON, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Bruce George (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of robbery in the first degree, a Class A felony in violation of Section 569.020,1 and armed criminal action, a felony in violation of Section 571.015. Defendant alleges that the trial court abused its discretion when it prohibited testimony by Jimmie Boykin (Victim) as to the source of the money that was taken from him. Defendant also contends that the trial court plainly erred when it rejected probation as an option for sentencing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The admission or exclusion of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and this Court will not reverse the trial court’s evidentiary ruling unless there is substantial or glaring injustice. *Liszewski v. Union Elec. Co.,*941 S.W.2d 748, 751 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). We also conclude that there was no plain error by the trial court. Relief under the plain error standard is granted only where the alleged error will so substantially affect a defendant’s rights that a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice inexorably results if left uncorrected. *State v. Santillan,*1 S.W.3d 572, 578 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo. (2000), unless otherwise indicated.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1369

THERESA N. FERGUSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, CHARLES PHILIP 

ROSENBERG, Director, Drug Enforcement Administration,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-01641-TSE-JFA)

Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 22, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theresa N. Ferguson, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, 

Jr., Lauren Anne Wetzler, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Theresa N. Ferguson appeals the district court’s order

granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On appeal, we 

confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s 

brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Ferguson’s informal 

brief does not challenge the district court’s holding that 

summary judgment was appropriate where Ferguson did not exhaust 

her administrative remedies in good faith, Ferguson has 

forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, 

we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN ON MOTION F OR RECONSIDERATION EN B ANC

NO. 03-0 9 -00 280 -CV In re Texas StateBoard of P ubl ic Acc ountan cy ORIG IN A L PR OC E E D IN GFR OM T R A V IS C OU N T Y D I S S E N T I NGO P I N I O N F or the re a so ns e xpre sse d in Justi c e Patte rs on ’s dis se nti ng op in io n, Ire sp e c tf ull y dissent from the denia l of the motion for en ba nc re consideration.

__________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Patterson, Puryear , Pemberton, Waldrop and He nson Filed: January

14, 2010
STATE of North Carolina v. Jaime Louis BROWN, Defendant.

No. COA18-467

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 20, 2018

REVERSED. REMANDED.
PCP 20130530 10K EX.10.21




Exhibit 10.21




Summary of Agreement between Precision Castparts Corp. (PCC) and Roger Cooke
May 29, 2013


		
	1.
	 For the period from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014, Mr. Cooke will be available to perform services for the company for 48 days in the aggregate.  The CEO of the Company or his designee will provide assignments from time to time during the one year period. To the extent possible, the work will be scheduled so it does not all occur in a concentrated period, but rather falls into each of the four calendar quarters. Any expansion of services beyond 48 days will be based on mutually agreeable terms and conditions.  




		
	2.
	The Company will pay Mr. Cooke a fixed retainer of $106,000 for the 48 days of service. The retainer will be paid quarterly in advance.  The Company reserves the right to terminate this arrangement at the end of any quarterly period; Mr. Cooke has the same right to terminate the arrangement. If the Company terminates the arrangement and there is an imbalance between the hours worked and the retainer paid in favor of the Company, the Company will make an adjustment. 




		
	3.
	The Company will reimburse Mr. Cooke for routine expenses incurred in the performance of the services called for above.




		
	4.
	Under this arrangement, Mr. Cooke will be an independent contractor to the Company. He will not be entitled to the benefits of an employee or be eligible to receive stock options or health benefits, but can be considered for a discretionary bonus based on individual and corporate results achieved.




		
	5.
	Mr. Cooke will be solely responsible for the payment of all income, social security and other taxes, including estimated taxes, owed on the retainer payments.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 13A-14 OF THE  SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT  TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, MICHAEL H. MCCLELLAN, Chief Financial Officer certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ETS Payphones, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 presented in this quarterly 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



6.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors
that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

Date:
August 5, 2004

| |  | /s/MICHAEL H. MCCLELLANMichael H. McClellan
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
STATE of North Carolina v. Shelton Paul FERGUSON, Defendant.

No. COA17-764

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 7, 2018

NO ERROR.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350**

**Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofDouglas Dynamics, Inc., or the Company, on Form 10-Q for the fiscalquarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, or Report, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of the Companycertifies that:

 

·**            **the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

·**            **the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
|                         | By:      | /s/ JAMES L. JANIK                                      |
|------------------------------|----------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |     | James L. Janik                                          |
| * *                     | * * | *President and**Chief Executive Officer*                |
|                         |     |                                                    |
| Dated: November 8, 2010 |     |                                                    |
|                         |     |                                                    |
|                         | By:      | /s/ ROBERT MCCORMICK                                    |
|                         |     | Robert McCormick                                        |
| * *                     | * * | *Executive Vice President and**Chief Financial Officer* |
|                         |     |                                                    |
| Dated: November 8, 2010 |     |                                                    |

 

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Raymond Malik TIMMONS

No. COA18-618

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

DISMISSED.
STATE v. Marcus Reymond ROBINSON

411A94-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 14, 2019

Robert T. Thompson, G. Robert Hicks, III, Assistant District Attorneys, William P. Hart, Sr., Senior Deputy Attorney General, Danielle Marquis Elder, Robert C. Montgomery, Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorneys General, Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, For State of NC

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Jay H. Ferguson, Durham, James E. Ferguson, II, Charlotte, Cassandra Stubbs, D. Clark Smith, Jr., Greensboro, Donald H. Beskind, Raleigh, Kenneth J. Rose, Durham, David Weiss, Brian W. Stull, Attorneys at Law, For Robinson, Marcus Reymond

Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, For Social Scientists

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

Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, For National Association for Public Defense

Burton Craige, Raleigh, Narendra K. Ghosh, Chapel Hill, James E. Williams, Jr., Carrboro, Attorneys at Law, For N.C. Advocates for Justice

Jeffrey Gerrish, James P. Cooney, III, Charlotte, Gregory B. Craig, Alex T. Haskell, Attorneys at Law, For Former Senior U.S. Military Officials

John R. Mills, Attorney at Law, For Experts in Law and Implicit Bias

James E. Coleman, Jr., Attorney at Law, For Becton, Charles, et al.

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

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

Lisa A. Bakale-Wise, Irving Joyner, Durham, Attorneys at Law, For N.C. State Conference of the NAACP

Carlos E. Mahoney, Attorney at Law, Durham, Jin Hee Lee, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, W. Kerrel Murray, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, For NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Jeremy M. Falcone, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Paul F. Khoury, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, Robert L. Walker, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, Madeline J. Cohen, Attorney at Law, Pro Hac Vice, For Former State and Federal Prosecutor *879The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of January 2019 by Amicus Curiae (Former State and Federal Prosecutors) for Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of March 2019."
Beth DESMOND v. The NEWS AND OBSERVER PUBLISHING COMPANY, McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., and Mandy Locke

No. 132PA18-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 27, 2019

John A. Bussian, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Bradley R. Kutrow, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Julia C. Ambrose, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for The News And Observer Publishing Company, et al.

James T. Johnson, Attorney at Law, Chynna T. Smith, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Desmond, Beth.

William M. Wilson, III, Attorney at Law, for Professor William Van Alstyne.

Jonathan E. Buchan, Attorney at Law, for The Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press, et al.

*401***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendants (The News and Observer Publishing Company and Mandy Locke) on the 11th of January 2019 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Plaintiff, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of March 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of January 2019 by Defendants (The News and Observer Publishing Company and Mandy Locke) 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of March 2019."

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 ex rel. Kevin DUPRE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-1911.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Dupre, Kevin;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 97K1539; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 01-01660.

Denied.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4916 

To amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to authorize the Coquille Indian 

Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, the Confederated Tribes 

of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, the Klamath Tribes, and 

the Burns Paiute Tribe to obtain 99-year lease authority for trust land. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2010 

Mr. DEFAZIO (for himself and Mr. SCHRADER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to authorize the 

Coquille Indian Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz 

Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower 

Umpqua, and Siuslaw, the Klamath Tribes, and the 

Burns Paiute Tribe to obtain 99-year lease authority 

for trust land. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LEASES OF RESTRICTED LAND. 

4 Subsection (a) of the first section of the Act of Au5 gust 9, 1955 (25 U.S.C. 415(a)), is amended in the second 

6 sentence by inserting ‘‘land held in trust for the Coquille 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4916 IH

1 Indian Tribe, land held in trust for the Confederated 

2 Tribes of Siletz Indians, land held in trust for the Confed3 erated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw 

4 Indians, land held in trust for the Klamath Tribes, and 

5 land held in trust for the Burns Paiute Tribe,’’ after 

6 ‘‘lands held in trust for the Confederated Tribes of the 

7 Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon,’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Katherine M. Bradley, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 905]

Appeal *890from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), rendered April 30, 1999, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree in satisfaction of two multicount indictments and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 1 to 3 years and 3 years to life, respectively. Defense counsel seeks to be relieved of her assignment as counsel for defendant on the ground that no nonfrivolous appealable issues exist. Upon our review of the record and defense counsel’s brief, we agree. Defendant entered a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty and was sentenced in accordance with the negotiated plea agreement to the statutory minimum sentence. The judgment is, accordingly, affirmed and defense counsel’s application for leave to withdraw is granted (see, *People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979, *lv denied*67 NY2d 650).

Mercure, J. P., Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
#### UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, a Corporation, Appellant. UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, a Corporation, Appellee.

Nos. 71-1421, 71-1395.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 24, 1972.

*1029J. H. Cunningham, Jr., Willson, Cunningham & McClellan, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant-appellee, Ins. Co. of North America, a Corp.

Leo M. Newman, Goldehersh & Newman, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee-appel-

lant; Burton H. Shostak, Kramer, Chused, Kramer, Shostak & Kohn, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee-appellant on the Appeal.

Before GIBSON, HEANEY, and ROSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by both parties from a judgment against Insurance Company of North America (INA) on a fire insurance contract, in a suit brought by United States Fire Insurance Company (U.S. Fire) as subrogee. The district court’s memorandum opinion is reported at 328 F.Supp. 43 (E.D.Mo.1971), and the facts are adequately discussed therein.

A fire insurance policy was issued by INA to Southern Universal Textile Processors (Southern), as part of a group of policies, covering fire losses to its goods and the goods of its customers at its Georgia plant. U.S. Fire likewise issued a policy to Mode Craft Company (Mode Craft), a customer of Southern, covering loss by fire to its goods being processed at Southern’s plant. Both policies contained “Other Insurance” clauses, which the trial court determined to be mutually repugnant.

After fire destroyed Mode Craft’s goods at Southern’s plant, Mode Craft failed to submit a report of losses to Southern for coverage under the INA policy. Rather, it submitted a claim to U.S. Fire, which paid the loss and then brought this action against INA for recovery of its contractual percentage limit of the loss. Judge Harper found both policies applicable as primary coverage, and apportioned the loss equally between U.S. Fire and the insurance group of which INA was a 30% participant.

We find that Judge Harper properly interpreted the insurance contracts and applied the appropriate law, and we cannot say that his finding of fact as to the amount of actual loss sustained is clearly erroneous. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of his reported opinion.