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



EXHIBIT 31.1
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 302
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  1)
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Commercial Bancshares, 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 annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the
Evaluation Date); andc)
    
    presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 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):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material
weaknesses in internal controls; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and
 6)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have indicated in this report whether or not
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.
 03/28/2007
 /s/ Philip W. Kinley[Signature]Philip W. Kinley
President and Chief Executive Officer
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2139

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to exempt agricultural

stormwater and silviculture operation discharges from the requirement

for a permit under the national pollutant discharge elimination system,

and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 2, 2000

Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself and Mr. ENZI) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

A BILL

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to exempt agricultural stormwater and silviculture operation

discharges from the requirement for a permit under the

national pollutant discharge elimination system, and for

other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Timber and Agri5 culture Environmental Fairness Act’’.
2

•S 2139 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FOR AGRICULTURAL STORMWATER

2 AND SILVICULTURE OPERATION DIS3 CHARGES.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 402(l) of the Federal

5 Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342(l)) is

6 amended by adding at the end the following:

7 ‘‘(3) AGRICULTURAL STORMWATER DIS8 CHARGES.—The Administrator shall not require a

9 permit under this section, nor shall the Adminis10 trator directly or indirectly require any State to re11 quire such a permit, for discharges composed en12 tirely of agricultural stormwater discharges, includ13 ing stormwater runoff from—

14 ‘‘(A) cultivated crops;

15 ‘‘(B) pastures;

16 ‘‘(C) rangeland;

17 ‘‘(D) orchards;

18 ‘‘(E) aquaculture facilities; and

19 ‘‘(F) forest land.

20 ‘‘(4) SILVICULTURE OPERATION.—

21 ‘‘(A) DEFINITION OF SILVICULTURE OPER22 ATION.—

23 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—In this paragraph,

24 the term ‘silviculture operation’ means the

25 practice of controlling the establishment,
3

•S 2139 IS

1 composition, constitution, and growth of

2 forests.

3 ‘‘(ii) INCLUSIONS.—The term

4 ‘silviculture operation’ includes—

5 ‘‘(I) a nursery operation;

6 ‘‘(II) reforestation;

7 ‘‘(III) cultural treatment;

8 ‘‘(IV) thinning;

9 ‘‘(V) prescribed burning;

10 ‘‘(VI) a harvest operation;

11 ‘‘(VII) site preparation;

12 ‘‘(VIII) road construction and

13 maintenance;

14 ‘‘(IX) surface drainage; and

15 ‘‘(X) pest and fire control.

16 ‘‘(B) PERMIT REQUIREMENT.—The Ad17 ministrator shall not require a permit under

18 this section, nor shall the Administrator directly

19 or indirectly require any State to require such

20 a permit, for discharges from a silviculture op21 eration.’’.

22 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 502(14) of

23 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.

24 1362(14)) is amended by striking the second sentence and

25 inserting the following: ‘‘The term does not include agri-
4

•S 2139 IS

1 cultural stormwater discharges, return flows from irri2 gated agriculture, and discharges of stormwater runoff

3 from silviculture operations (as defined in section

4 402(l)(4)).’’.

Æ
Exhibit
10.1








Summary
of Compensation Arrangements with Executive Officers


As
of April 16, 2009








The
following summarizes the current compensation and benefits received by the Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of RPC, Inc. (“the Company”) and
the Company’s other most highly compensated executive officers (the “Named
Executive Officers”) as of April 16, 2009.





This
document is intended to be a summary of existing oral, at will arrangements, and
in no way is intended to provide any additional rights to any of the Named
Executive Officers.





Base
Salaries





The
annual base salaries for the Company’s Named Executive Officers as of April 16,
2009 are as follows:





R.
      Randall Rollins, Chairman of the Board
              $510,000Richard
      A. Hubbell, President and Chief Executive Officer
              $595,000Linda
      H. Graham, Vice President and Secretary
              $140,250Ben
      M. Palmer, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
      Treasurer
              $212,500


These
salaries may be adjusted from time to time in the discretion of the Company’s
Compensation Committee.





Bonuses





All of
the Named Executive Officers are eligible for annual cash bonuses under the
Company’s Performance-Based Incentive Cash Compensation Plan (the
“Plan”).





Stock
Options and Other Equity Awards





The Named
Executive Officers are eligible to receive options and restricted stock under
the Company’s stock incentive plan, in such amounts and with such terms and
conditions as determined by the Committee at the time of grant.





Supplemental
Retirement Plan





Salary and Bonus
Deferrals





All of
the Named Executive Officers are eligible to participate in the Company’s
Supplemental Retirement Plan (“Plan”).





The Plan
allows participants to defer up to 50% of base salary and up to 100% of annual
bonus, subject to other terms and conditions set forth in the Plan.




1





Automobile
Usage





The
Company provides an automobile or an automobile allowance to Messrs. Hubbell and
Palmer.





Other
Benefits





The Named
Executive Officers are eligible to participate in the Company’s regular employee
benefit programs, including the 401(k) plan with Company match, group life
insurance, group medical and dental coverage and other group benefit
plans.  All of the Named Executives are eligible for the Retirement
Income Plan that was frozen in March 2002.  See Supplemental
Retirement Plan above for further discussion.





All of
the Named Executive Officers are also executive officers of Marine Products
Corporation (“MPC”) and receive compensation from that
company.  Disclosure regarding such compensation can be found in MPC’s
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.






2
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2370 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2370

 To designate the Federal building located at 500 Pearl Street in New 
  York City, New York, as the ``Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States 
                             Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 6, 2000

  Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Roth, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. 
Baucus, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Lott, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
 Bayh, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Bryan, Mr. 
Byrd, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. 
Feinstein, Mr. Graham, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, 
  Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Robb, Mr. 
 Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Wyden, 
 Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bond, Mr. L. Chafee, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. 
Craig, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Helms, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Jeffords, 
 Mr. Nickles, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
 Fitzgerald, Mr. Gorton, and Mr. Grams) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the Federal building located at 500 Pearl Street in New 
  York City, New York, as the ``Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States 
                             Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    The Federal building located at 500 Pearl Street in New York City, 
New York, shall be known and designated as the ``Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan United States Courthouse.
                                 <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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Fremont and Winema Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Klamath Falls, Oregon, for the purpose of evaluating and recommending resource management projects for funding in FY 2011, under the provisions of Title II of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-343).

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on June 22 and 23, 2010.

# ADDRESSES:

                        The meeting will take place at the Klamath Ranger District Office, 2819 Dahlia Street, Klamath Falls, OR 97601. Send written comments to Fremont and Winema Resource Advisory Committee, c/o USDA Forest Service, 2819 Dahlia Street, Klamath Falls, OR 97601 or electronically to                         *agowan@fs.fed.us.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amy Gowan, Designated Federal Official, c/o Klamath Ranger District, 2819 Dahlia Street, Klamath Falls, OR 97601, telephone (541) 883-6741.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The agenda will include a review of FY 2011 Title II project proposals submitted by the Forest Service, the public, non-profits and other agencies, presentations by project proponents, and final recommendations for funding of fiscal year 2011 projects.

All Fremont and Winema Resource Advisory Committee Meetings are open to the public. Public input and comment forum will take place in the afternoon of June 23, 2010. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend.

Dated: May 10, 2010.

Amy Gowan,

DFO.

[FR Doc. 2010-11888 Filed 5-18-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
#### Jones *et al.*v. Jones *et al.*

(Opinion filed May 31, 1905.)

On rehearing.

Affirmed.

For former opinion, see 17 S. D 256, 96 N. W. 88.

*M. H. Keith*and *Joe Kirby,*for appellants.

*Davis, Lyon & Oates,*for respondents.

Haney, J.

The order of the lower court granting a new trial in this action was heretofore affirmed, • and the cause remanded. Jones v. Jones, 17 S. D. 256, 96 N. W. 88. Subsequently, upon the application of the plaintiffs, it being then made to ap*373pear that the defendant Wilson S. Jones had died testate after the appeal was taken and before the decision of this court was rendered, the remittitur and record were recalled; the decision and judgment of this court were vacated; the action continued against H. W. Subera, as executor of the last will of the decedent, and Isaac S Jones, the other defendant; a rehearing was granted; and the cause was again assigned for argument.

For the reasons assigned in our former decision, which is hereby referred to, and made a part hereof, the order of the circuit court granting a new trial must be affirmed. After the rehearing was granted, the plaintiffs, upon due notice, applied for an order severing the action, and allowing them to proceed against each of the defendants separately. Without determining whether a severance is necessary, or what, if any, rights the plaintiffs may enforce against either defendant separately, it is believed that no substantial injury would result from granting the plaintiffs’ application. Therefore the order appealed from is affirmed, and the action remanded, with directions to the circuit court to grant the plaintiffs leave to serve and file new complaints against each of the defendants upon such terms as it shall deem just and equitable.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                              69
<SECURITIES>                                         1
<RECEIVABLES>                                      291
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        152
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   648
<PP&E>                                           4,307
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,729
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,593
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              378
<BONDS>                                          1,494
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            60
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,593
<SALES>                                          1,610
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,610
<CGS>                                            1,245
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,436
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (32)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  94
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    112
<INCOME-TAX>                                        54
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 58
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        58
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04


</TABLE>
No. 1,814.

#### STATE ex rel. BOSTON & MONTANA CONSOLIDATED C. & S. MINING COMPANY, Relator, v. DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT et al., Respondents.

Original — Writ of Supervisory Control.

Decided August 2, 1902.

Per Curiam.

— The application for a writ of supervisory control herein is denied and the proceeding is dismissed. (Mr. Justice Pigott dissents.)

*549*Mr. W. W. Dixon, Mr. ,A. J. Shores, Mr. G. F. Kelly, Messrs. Forbis & Evans,*and *Mr. D. Gay Stivers,*for Relator.

*Messrs. McHatton & Goiter,*and *Mr. W. G. Jones,*for Respondents.
No. 1,748.

#### THRELKELD, Respondent, *v.*O’NEAL, Appellant.

*Appeal from District Court, Deer Lodge County.*

(Eor former opinion, see *ante,*page 209.)

On motion to dismiss appeal.

*Mr. J. II. Duffy,*for Respondent.

Decided January 24, 1902.

Per Curiam.

— It is ordered and adjudged that the motion to dismiss the appeal be and the same is hereby sustained, and the appeal dismissed.
fbmui Ieumlienlt -N, 93-337

VETOING H.R. 11s73

ANIMAL HEALTH RESEARCH

MESSAGE

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

VETOING THE ACT (H.R. 1IS73) TO AUTHORIZE TTE s17'-

RETARY OF AGRICITLTURE TO ENCOURAGE AND ASSIST

THE SEVERAL STATES IN (tARRING OUT A PROGRAM

OF ANIMAL HEALTH RESEARCH H

AUGUST 15, 1974.-Message and accompanying act referred to the

Conmnittee on Agriculture and ordered to be printed

38-011 0

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1974

93d1 eS '-II ' , ~~
H. R. 11873

)inet-third Congress of the United &atcs of 2mrica

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the twenty-first day of January,

one thousand nine hundred and seventy-f our

2n 2ct

To the touse of eprectitaft ies:

I am returning today without 1v approval H.R. 11873,, an act

authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to encourage and assist

States in carrying out programs of animal health research.

I believe, as do proponents of this bill, that veterinary research has

helped to make American livestock the healthiest and most productive

in the world. We must continue to maintain high standards of research.

But I also believe that this bill adds little to the existing programs

of the Department of Agriculture and other agencies.

We are presently spending over $40l million on programs involving

animal health research, and nearly every land-grant college and colleges of veterinary medicine in the United States are participating in

these programs.

This bill, however, would establish a nev categorical grant program that would authorize an expenditure of an additional $47 million annually and would be duplicative of many programs that already

exist. The overlapping would be especially true of programs in fish

and shellfish research and predator control.

Because this bill would add further to the Federal taxpayers' burdens without significantly meeting national needs and would only add

to inflationary pressures within the economy, I feel that I must'withhold my approval. GEALn B. FOR.

THE Wt]TE HOUSE, August 14, 1971.
Exhibit
4.12

     

    [Translation
of Chinese Original]

     

    Letter
of Consent

     

    From:
Beijing Super TV Co., Ltd. (“Super TV”)

     

    To:
Beijing Novel-Super Digital TV Technology Co., Ltd. (“N-S Digital
TV”)

     

    Super TV
and N-S Digital TV entered into the
Products and Software Purchase Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “the
Original Agreement”) on June 27, 2004. In order to clarify with respect to the
implementation of the Original Agreement, Super TV hereby issues this Letter of
Consent.

     

    
      	
              1.

            	
              Subject
      Matters of Consent: in accordance with Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the
      Original Agreement, Super TV hereby consents that beginning March 2006,
      N-S Digital TV may produce independently or purchase from a third party IC
      cards used in conditional access systems that it requires for its
      operation.

            


    

     

    
      	
              2.

            	
              Term
      of Consent: starting from the above-mentioned beginning date of consent,
      until the date on which Super TV makes a written statement to terminate
      this Letter of Consent.

            


    

     

    
      	
              3.

            	
              The
      other terms and conditions provided in the Original Agreement and their
      implementation shall remain unchanged. Super TV is entitled to terminate
      this Letter of Consent at any time. Upon termination of this Letter of
      Consent, both parties shall resume their performance of the relevant
      provisions of the Original
Agreement.

            


    

     

    
      	
              4.

            	
              This
      Letter of Consent shall become effective upon issuance by Super
      TV.

            


    

     

    Beijing
Super TV Co., Ltd.

    (Seal)

    April 30,
2009
**Exhibit 32.2**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of XETA Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert B. Wagner, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        |   | /s/ Robert B. Wagner    |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Robert B. Wagner        |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   | February 28, 2007       |

 

----