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

CERTIFICATION

I, William J. Fox, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
report on Form 10-K of the Corporate Backed Callable Trust Certificates, J.C. Penney Debenture-Backed Series 2007-1 Trust (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of
Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing, or similar, agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an
exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Based on my knowledge there were no material instances of noncompliance described in such reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee.

Date: March 30, 2012



|    |  |                                                               |  |                                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ William J. Fox                                           
|    |  | Name:                                                         |  | William J. Fox                                      
|    |  | Title:                                                        |  | Chief Financial Officer and
Executive Vice President
|    |  | (Senior Officer in charge of securitization of the Depositor)
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J OH N D OE, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, a nd AMAR P AL S I NG H an d S AN F R AN TR UST, P l ai n t i ffs, v. HA WKI NS , DE L AF I E L D A ND WOOD ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 15038 D. C . No . 3 : 0 6 - c v - 0 1 5 0 2 - MHP ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M a r i l y n H . P a t e l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J une 29, 2010 ** B e f o r e : A L A R C Ó N , L E A V Y , a n dG R A B E R , C ir c u it J u d g e s . 

# FI LED JU L 20 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 15038 2 John D oe appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s orderdesi gn at i ng hi m as p ayee fo r sett l em en tp ro ceed s fo l l o w i n g th e sett l em en to f h i s E R IS A act i o n ag ai n st F ir s t U n u m L if

e I n s u r a n c e C o . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w f o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . Ki rkland v . L egi on I ns . C o. , 343 F . 3d 1135, 1 1 4 0 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i tde s i gna t e d D oe a s the s e tt l e m e ntpa y e e a f

t e rgi vi ng D oe num e r ous w a rni ngs , hol di ng thr e e he a r i ngs on the i ss ue, and al l ow i ng D oe m ore than a ye ari n w hi ch t o setup a val i d speci al n e e d s tru s t. See S. Cal . E dison C o. v. L ynch , 307 F . 3d 794, 807 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( “ D i s tr i c tc ourt s ha ve i nhe r e ntpow e rt o c ontr ol the i rdoc ke t s ” ) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m arks om i tt ed). T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b yd e n y in g D o e ’s r e q u e s ts to b r in g a d d itio n a l c la im s a f te re n tryo f

th e s e ttle m e n t a g r e e m e n t. See V entress v. Japa n A i rl i nes , 603 F . 3d 676, 680- 81 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( s e tt i ng f orth s t a nda r d of re vi ew ). D o e ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e u n p e r s u a s iv e . D oe ’ s m ot i on f

orj udi c i a l not i c e i s gr a nt e d. AF F I RME D.
EXHIBIT 11.1

                        SAVVIS Communications Corporation

   CALCULATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES
                             USED IN EPS CALCULATION

                                   (UNAUDITED)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                 For the Three
                                                                                  Months Ended
                                                                                 March 31, 2001
                                                                                 --------------
<S>                                                                                 <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding:
Common stock:
  Shares outstanding at beginning of period, net of 2,978,749
   shares subject to forfeiture ............................................        90,813,441
  Weighted average shares, net of treasury shares, issued or vested during
   the three months ended March 31, 2001 (50,308 new shares issued).........            84,685
                                                                                 ---------------
                                                                                    90,898,126
                                                                                ================
Net loss attributable to common shareholders ...............................      $(56,453,000)
                                                                                ================
Basic and diluted loss per share ...........................................      $     (0.62)
                                                                                ================
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 62925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29955]








Commodity Futures Trading Commission

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, December 15, 1995.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95-29955 Filed 12-5-95; 1:35 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MATTHEW J. KING, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

JAMES G. COX, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16725 

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02080-GMNPAL 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2017**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN, and RAWLINSON, 

Circuit Judges.

Matthew J. King, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate 

indifference to a serious medical need. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 

 

*This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without 

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 2 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-16725 

2004). We affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants Cox 

and Byrne because King failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to 

whether the course of treatment chosen to treat his hepatitis C was “medically 

unacceptable under the circumstances, and was chosen in conscious disregard of an 

excessive risk to [King’s] health.” Id. at 1058 (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted) (a difference in medical opinion does not rise to the level of 

deliberate indifference). 

King’s appeal of the denial of his motion for preliminary injunction is moot. 

See Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1450 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(when underlying claims have been decided, the reversal of a denial of preliminary 

relief would have no practical consequences, and the issue is therefore moot).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying King’s motions for 

appointment of a medical expert and an investigator because King failed to show 

that these appointments were necessary. See Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long 

Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999) (setting forth standard 

of review).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying King’s motion for 

appointment of counsel because King did not show exceptional circumstances

warranting such an appointment. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th 
3 16-16725 

Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and explaining the “exceptional 

circumstances” requirement).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
#### Hattie Spotten, Respondent, v. William H. Keeler, Appellant.

Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Bockes, J.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 528 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 528

   To prohibit foreign assistance to countries with a gross domestic 
                 product of $1,500,000,000,000 or more.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2013

 Mr. Bucshon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit foreign assistance to countries with a gross domestic 
                 product of $1,500,000,000,000 or more.

    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 ``Invest in America First Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRIES WITH A GDP OF 
              $1,500,000,000,000 OR MORE.

    (a) Prohibition.--
            (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
        assistance may not be provided under any provision of law to a 
        country with a GDP of $1,500,000,000,000 or more.
            (2) Exception.--The prohibition on assistance under 
        paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to military 
        assistance, security assistance, or humanitarian assistance.
    (b) Definitions.--In this Act--
            (1) the term ``GDP'' means, with respect to a country, the 
        gross domestic product of the country on a purchasing power 
        parity (PPP) basis divided by the population of the country, as 
        determined by the most recent publication of the Central 
        Intelligence Agency's The World Factbook; and
            (2) the term ``humanitarian assistance''--
                    (A) means assistance, provided on such terms and 
                conditions as the President may determine, for the 
                relief and rehabilitation of victims of natural and 
                manmade disasters, including food, water, medicine, 
                clothing, and shelter; and
                    (B) does not include direct financial assistance 
                for the purposes described in subparagraph (A).
                                 <all>
```
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00210

- CR

R OBERT E ARNEST W ILKERSON

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 355th District

Court

of H ood County (CR13905)

December 5, 2019

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of th e trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By __ /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

_______________ Chief Justice Bonnie Suddert h
EXHIBIT
10.7

    Irrevocable
Proxy

    


    The
undersigned holder (the "Holder") of 3,132,932
shares of common stock (the "Shares") of Pharma-Bio Serv, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), solely in
its capacity as a holder of securities of the Company, hereby irrevocably
appoints Elizabeth Plaza, as the sole and exclusive attorney and proxy of the
Holder, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, to vote and exercise
all voting, consent and similar rights with respect to all of the Holder's
Shares, until the Expiration Date (as defined below), on the terms and
conditions specified below.  Upon the Holder's execution of this
Irrevocable Proxy, any and all prior proxies given by the Holder with respect to
any of the Holder's Shares are hereby revoked and the Holder agrees not to grant
any subsequent proxies with respect to any of the Holder's Shares until after
the Expiration Date.

     

    This
Irrevocable Proxy is irrevocable, is coupled with an interest sufficient in law
to support an irrevocable power made for the benefit of third
parties.

     

    The term
of this Irrevocable Proxy shall commence on the date (the "Certification Date")
the Company obtains a National Minority Supplier Development Council
Minority-Controlled Certification with respect to 2009 ("Certification") and
shall terminate on the "Expiration
Date".  As used herein, the term "Expiration Date"
shall mean the first anniversary date of the Certification Date unless the
Certification expires sooner in which event the Expiration Date shall be the
date the Certification expires.

     

    The
attorney and proxy named above is hereby authorized and empowered by the Holder,
at any time prior to the Expiration Date, to act as the Holder's attorney and
proxy to vote the Holder's Shares, and to exercise all voting, consent and
similar rights of the Holder with respect to the Holder's Shares (including,
without limitation, the power to execute and deliver written consents) at every
annual, special or adjourned meeting of stockholders of the Company and in every
written consent in lieu of such meeting.

     

    Any
obligation hereunder of the Holder shall be binding upon the successors and
assigns of the Holder.  This Irrevocable Proxy shall terminate, and be
of no further force or effect, automatically upon the Expiration
Date.

     

    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Holder has caused this Irrevocable Proxy to be
executed as of July 15, 2009.

     

    
      
        
          
            
              	 
      	
                      Holder:

                    
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                      Name:  Venturetek
      LP

                    
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                      By:

                    	
                      /s/ David Selengut

                    
	 
      	 
      	
                      Name:

                    	
                      David
      Selengut

                    
	 
      	 
      	
                      Title:

                    	
                      Managing
      Member Taurus Max LLC,
GP
exv10w2





Exhibit 10.2




FIRST AMENDMENT

TO

GLOBAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.

MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN




     The Global Industries, Ltd. Management Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as
follows (terms not otherwise defined herein have the meaning ascribed to them in the Plan):



     1. Section 10.2 shall be amended by adding to the end of such section a sentence that reads as
follows: “This right shall supersede any existing employment arrangements or agreements.”



     2. Section 11.2(b)(aa) of the Plan shall be amended to read as follows:




     “(aa) any person (within the meaning of Section 13(d)(3) or 14(d) under the
Exchange Act, including any group (within the meaning of Section 13(d)(3) under the
Exchange Act), a “Person”) except an underwriter or group of underwriters in
connection with a public offering of the Common Stock, is or becomes the “beneficial
owner” (as such term is defined in Rule 13d-3 promulgated under the Exchange Act),
directly or indirectly, of securities of the Company (such Person being referred to
as an “Acquiring Person”) representing 50% of the combined voting power of the
Company’s outstanding securities other than beneficial ownership by (i) the Company
or any subsidiary of the Company or (ii) any employee benefit plan of the Company or
any Person organized, appointed or established pursuant to the terms of any such
employee benefit plan (unless such plan or Person is a party to or is utilized in
connection with a transaction led by Outside Persons) (Persons referred to in
clauses (i) and (ii) hereof are referred to as “Excluded Persons”);”



     3. The second paragraph of Section 11.2(b)(aa) of the Plan shall be amended to read as
follows:



          “For purposes of clause (aa) above, the term “Outside Persons” means any Persons other than
Persons described in clauses (aa)(i) above or members of senior management of the Company in office
immediately prior to the time the Acquiring Person acquires the beneficial ownership described in
clause (aa).”




     4. The parenthetical in subpart (2)(i) of the third paragraph of Section 11.2(b)(aa) that
reads as follows is hereby deleted:



          “(unless such other part or such Person is William J. Dore, if William J. Dore has not ceased
to be an Excluded Person)”




     5. The Plan as amended and modified by this First Amendment shall remain in full force and
effect and this First Amendment shall not change or modify the terms of any outstanding Awards
under the Plan.



     Adopted by the Board of Directors of Global Industries, Ltd. on August 5, 2009.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Lonnie James v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-19-00734-CR

Trial court case number: 579726Z

Trial court: 208th District Court of Harris County

The appellant, Lonnie James, and the appellee, the State of Texas, have filed a Joint Motion 

to Redesignate this Appeal as a Civil Case. The motion asserts that this case is an appeal from a 

judgment entered in a civil commitment proceeding under Chapter 841, Texas Health and Safety 

Code, and therefore the case should have been designated as a civil case with the designation “CV” 

and that provisions of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for civil cases should apply.

The parties are correct. The record indicates that the State filed an original petition seeking 

civil commitment of the appellant under Title 11, Chapter 841, Texas Health and Safety Code. 

Although the State’s petition was filed in a criminal district court, it is a civil proceeding. In re 

Commitment of Fisher, 164 S.W.3d 637, 653 (Tex. 2005). The statute provides that “a civil 

commitment proceeding is subject to the rules of procedure and appeal for civil cases.” See TEX.

HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 841.146(b). Thus, the Court agrees that this appeal is appropriately a 

“civil case” under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 12.2(a)(4) 

(requiring docket number to include “the designation ‘CV’ for a civil case”).

The record on appeal shows the appellant filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment 

of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond in the trial court, which was not overruled. Thus, the appellant 

is not required to pay costs in the appellate court. TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1(a), 20.1(b)(1).

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion and DIRECTS the Clerk of this 

Court to change the designation of this appeal from a criminal case to a civil case, to renumber the 

appeal “01-19-00734-CV,” and to restyle the appeal as “In re Commitment of Lonnie James.”

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: __October 22, 2019__
#### ELSIE V. RATLEDGE v. OTTIS J. REYNOLDS et al.

(Filed 27 September, 1939.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Alley, J.,*at April Term, 1939, of Surry. Civil action in ejectment.

It appears from tbe record that on 3 January, 1925, L. E. Cockerham and wife conveyed tbe *locus in quo*to J. W. Brookshire and wife, Alma Brookshire.

Plaintiff and defendant both claim under J. W. Brookshire and wife, Alma Brookshire.

Plaintiff offered in evidence a connected paper chain of title from tbe common source and rested.

*798Defendant offered in evidence deed of trust from J. W. Brookshire and wife, Alma Brookshire, to Carolina Mortgage and Indemnity Company, foreclosure, etc.

The trial court held .that on the record as presented, the defendant had shown the better title, and entered judgment of nonsuit. Plaintiff appeals.

*R. A. Freeman, William M. Allen, and Hoke F. Henderson for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Earl C. James for defendants, appellees.*

Per Curiam.

While a directed verdict might have been the better procedure, the plaintiff has shown no harm from the form of the judgment entered.

Affirmed.
Order issued February 11 , 2013 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

── ── ── ─── ─ ─ ─── ─── ───── ──── ──

No. 05

- 1 2

- 00 740

- CV

─ ── ── ─── ─ ─ ─── ─── ─ ─ ─── ──── ───

ROSALYN P. COLEMANN , Appellant

V.

PATRICK CALVANO, OAK PARK EQUIT IES, L.P., ET AL., Appellee s

════ ═ ══ ═══ ═══ ═ ═══ ══ ══ ═════ ═ ═ ═══ ════ ════ ════ ═══ ════ ═ ══ ══ ══ ══ ══ On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 11

- 06496

- D

══════ ══════ ═ ═══ ═ ══ ══ ════ ═══ ═ ═ ═══ ════ ════ ════ ════ ══ ══ ═══ ══ ══ ═



### O R D E R

By letter dated July 30, 2012 , this Court notified Court Reporter David Roy that the reporter = s

record in this case was overdue and directed h im to file the reporter = s record within thirty days of the

notice. On August 13, 2012, Mr. Roy copied the Court with a letter he sent to appellant regarding the

reporter’s record. In the letter, Mr. Roy notified appellant the reporter’s record had not yet been produced

and referred appellant to section 52.047 of the Texa s Government Code. To date, the reporter’s record

has not been filed. Accordingly, we ORDER Court Reporter David Roy to

, within THIRTY DAYS of

the date of this order, file either the reporter = s record, written verification that no hearings were recorded,

or written verification that appellant has not r equested or paid for the record.

/s/Carolyn Wright/

CHIEF JUSTICE