alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Cornelius C. Vanderstar, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed thisQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of International Aluminum Corporation;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a.               designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

b.              evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

c.               disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

a.               all significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b.              any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: May 11, 2005 | CORNELIUS  C. VANDERSTAR   |
|--------------------|----------------------------|
|               | Cornelius  C. Vanderstar   |
|               | Chairman  of the Board and |
|               | Chief  Executive Officer   |

 

18

----
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                                  [LETTERHEAD]

                                   March 23, 2000

Permian Basin Royalty Trust
Bank of America, N.A., Trustee
901 Main Street
Dallas, Texas

Gentlemen:

     Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. hereby consents to the use of the oil
and gas reserve information in the Permian Basin Royalty Trust Securities and
Exchange Commission Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 1999 and in the
Permian Basin Royalty Trust Annual Report for the year ending December 31, 1999,
based on reserve reports dated March 21, 2000 prepared by Cawley, Gillespie &
Associates, Inc.

                                          Submitted,

                                          /s/ CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES
                                          --------------------------------------
                                           CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.E., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

WASHINGTON DC VA MEDICAL CENTER,

Washington, DC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0924

Issued: October 26, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On May 28, 2021 appellant through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a May 21, 2021

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-0924.

In a letter dated and received July 26, 2021, counsel requested that the appeal be dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that counsel’s request for the 

dismissal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal is 

granted. The appeal docketed as No. 21-0924 is dismissed.

Issued: October 26, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
Exhibit 4.1

    

    

    DESCRIPTION OF THE REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES

    REGISTERED PURUSANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE SECURITIES

    EXCHNAGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

     

    As of December 31, 2021, Community Trust Bancorp, Inc. ( “our” or “CTBI”) had one class of securities registered under Section 12
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”): its common stock with a par value of $5.00 per share (“Common Stock”).

    
       

      Pursuant to our articles of incorporation, our authorized capital stock consists of twenty-five million (25,000,000) shares of
        Common Stock with a par value of $5.00 and three hundred thousand (300,000) shares of preferred stock.  The following description summarizes the material terms of our capital stock.  For a complete description of the matters set forth herein, you
        should refer to our articles of incorporation, our bylaws, and the applicable provisions of Kentucky law.

       

      Defined terms used herein and not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in CTBI’s Annual Report on Form
        10-K.

       

      Common Stock

       

    

    The holders of the Common Stock shall possess all voting power and each share of Common Stock shall have one vote on all matters
      submitted to the stockholders for a vote.

     

    Capital Market

     

    Our Common Stock is quoted on The NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “CTBI.”
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 1, 2020

No. 04-19-00720-CV

Neil R. FOGA and Marlene C. Turner-Foga,

Appellants

v.

GHK ENTERPRISES, LP,

Appellee

From the County Court, Frio County, Texas

Trial Court No. 9268

Arnulfo C. Luna, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee GHK Enterprises, L.P. has filed a notice that appellant Marlene C. Turner-Foga 

has filed a petition for bankruptcy. The notice complies with Rule 8 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. Accordingly, this appeal and all time periods are stayed from the date the 

bankruptcy petition was filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2. 

It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal is ABATED. For administrative purposes, the 

appeal will be treated as a closed case, unless and until it is reinstated in accordance with Rule 

8.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 1st day of April, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONOF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofInternational Aluminum Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”), I, Mitchell K. Fogelman, the Senior Vice President-Finance andChief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

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

 

2.         The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  February 11,  2004 | /s/ MITCHELL K.  FOGELMAN        |
|--------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                           | Mitchell  K. Fogelman            |
|                           | Senior  Vice President - Finance |
|                           | and  Chief Financial Officer     |

 

1

----
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5326 

To repeal the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2010 

Mr. CONAWAY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To repeal the National Organic Certification Cost-Share 

Program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF NATIONAL ORGANIC CERTIFI4 CATION COST-SHARE PROGRAM. 

5 (a) REPEAL OF AUTHORITY FOR PROGRAM.—Section 

6 10606 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 

7 of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 6523) is repealed. 

8 (b) TERMINATION OF OBLIGATIONS FOR PRO9 GRAM.—On and after the date of enactment of this Act, 

10 no funds shall be obligated to carry out the national or11 ganic certification cost-share program established under 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5326 IH

1 section 10606(a) of the Farm Security and Rural Invest2 ment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 6523). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #10180 and #10181] 

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 4. 

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1605-DR), dated 08/29/2005. 

*Incident:*                         Hurricane Katrina.                     

*Incident Period:*                         08/29/2005 through 09/26/2005.                     

*Effective Date:*                         10/20/2005.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         01/11/2006.                     

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         05/29/2006.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Alabama, dated 08/29/2005, is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 01/11/2006. 

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) 

Herbert L. Mitchell, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 05-21678 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 25, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20901

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM GLENN CHUNN,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-153-ALL

--------------------

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Glenn Chunn appeals the sentence following his

guilty plea conviction to possessing 50 grams or more of

methamphetamine with intent to distribute, to possessing a

firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking offense, and

to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Chunn asserts that

because the district court calculated the relevant drug quantity

by adding a quantity of pseudoephedrine that Chunn did not admit

to possessing, the sentence violated the Sixth Amendment pursuant
No. 04-20901

-2-

to United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Because Chunn

raised this objection in the district court, this court will

ordinarily remand for resentencing, unless the Government can

show that the court’s sentencing error was harmless beyond a

reasonable doubt. United States v. Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282, 284

(5th Cir. 2005).

The Government asserts that because Chunn was sentenced in

the middle of the applicable guideline range, the sentence was

harmless. This court has rejected such an assertion. See United

States v. Garza, 429 F.3d 165, 170-71 (5th Cir. 2005). Because

the Government cannot show that the district court would have

imposed the same sentence in the absence of the pseudoephedrine

quantity used, the judgment of the district court is VACATED and

the case is REMANDED to the district court for resentencing for

the drug conviction.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5429 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5429

 To provide a retroactive increase in deposit insurance for depositors 
                        in certain institutions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 27, 2010

Ms. Harman (for herself and Mr. Dreier) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide a retroactive increase in deposit insurance for depositors 
                        in certain institutions.

    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 ``Investor Deposit Yardstick Act''.

SEC. 2. RETROACTIVE INCREASE IN DEPOSIT INSURANCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the increase in the 
standard maximum deposit insurance amount pursuant to section 136(a)(1) 
of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 
5241(a)(1)) shall be extended to include depositors in any institution 
for which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed as 
receiver or conservator on or after January 1, 2008, and before October 
3, 2008. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation shall take such 
actions as are necessary to carry out the requirements under section 11 
of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1821) with respect to 
such depositors, without regard to any time limitations under such Act. 
In implementing this provision, any payment on a deposit claim made by 
the Corporation as receiver or conservator to a depositor above the 
standard maximum deposit insurance amount in effect at the time of the 
appointment of the Corporation as receiver or conservator shall be 
deemed to be part of the net amount due to the depositor under section 
11(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
1821(a)(1)(B)).
                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 5168] 

The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. State Department—Overseas Security Advisory Council on November 8, 2005, in Washington, DC. Pursuant to Section 10 (d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 5 U.S.C. 552b [c][4], it has been determined the meeting will be closed to the public. The meeting will involve the discussion and examination of corporate policies and procedures involving proprietary commercial and financial information that is considered privileged and confidential. The agenda will include updated committee reports, a global threat overview, and other matters relating to private sector physical and procedural security policies and protective programs and the protection of U.S. business information overseas. 

For more information contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security Advisory Council, Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-2008, phone: 571-345-2214. 

Dated: October 4, 2005. 

Joe D. Morton, 

Director of the Diplomatic Security Service, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 05-21727 Filed 10-28-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-43-P
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

 

Cubic Energy, Inc.

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-162390, 333-120388, 333-136374, 333-140013, 333-132341)  and Form S-8 (333-172426) of our report dated September 28, 2011, relating to the balance sheet of Cubic Energy, Inc. as of June 30, 2011 and 2010, and the related statements of operations, changes in shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended June 30, 2011, which report appears in this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2011.

 
|                      | /s/   Philip Vogel & CO., PC |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                      |                                  |
|                      | PHILIP   VOGEL & CO., PC     |
|                      |                                  |
| Dallas,   Texas           |                                  |
| September 28,   2011 |                                  |

 

----
#### JOANNE HELEN WELLMAN, aka FRANKLIN, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7628

April 19, 1974

521 P.2d 365

*175
      *Douglas J. Shoemaker,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Roy A. Woof-ter,*District Attorney, and *Joel M. Cooper,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

After a preliminary examination, appellant was ordered to stand trial for the murder of her husband. NRS 200.010. Thereafter, by petition for habeas corpus, she challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to show probable cause, contending that the only evidence against her was the testimony of Roosevelt Swift, who admitted having committed the homicide himself but who asserted he had done so at appellant’s instance.

In the court below, the State acknowledged that Swift was shown to be an accomplice by his own testimony, which was not corroborated as required by NRS 175.271 and our holding in Austin v. State, 87 Nev. 578, 491 P.2d 724 (1971). However, the State argues that the test of corroboration, as enunciated in *Austin*and authorities there cited, applies only at the trial stage. The State suggests that Lamb v. Bennett, 87 Nev. 89, 482 P.2d 298 (1971), supports this contention. We do not so read that opinion. In fact, in *Lamb*we said: “The requirement that the testimony of an accomplice be corroborated is applicable to preliminary hearings.” 87 Nev. at 91, 482 P.2d at 299. Accordingly, “the committing magistrate was without authority to bind over petitioner for trial.” Ex parte Hutchinson, 76 Nev. 478, 482, 357 P.2d 589, 591 (1960).

Excluding the incriminating testimony given by Swift, the record does not connect appellant with the homicide. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court, and direct that appellant be freed from custody unless, within 30 days time, the State elects to bring new charges.