alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FORM OF 302 CERTIFICATION

                                 EXHIBIT 31

                               CERTIFICATIONS

I, Steven B. Chotin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Fund America
Investors Corporation II;

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 officers 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:

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 quarterly 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 officers 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 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 controls, 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.




Date:    March 30, 2004                         /s/ Steven B. Chotin
                                                ---------------------------
                                                Steven B. Chotin
                                                Chief Executive Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6048

Apergy ESP Systems, LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
<CIK>       0000896145
<NAME>    OBJECTSOFT CORPORATION
       
<S>                                   <C>    
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    Dec-01-1998
<CASH>                                              982,006
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       152,440
<ALLOWANCES>                                         75,000
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1,614,813
<PP&E>                                            1,267,752
<DEPRECIATION>                                      600,758
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    2,937,107
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               681,959
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                       1,050,000
<COMMON>                                                685
<OTHER-SE>                                        8,327,718
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      2,937,107
<SALES>                                             160,465
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    160,465
<CGS>                                               666,090
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3,086,903
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   14,082
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (2,874,670)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (2,514,670)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (2,514,670)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (2,514,670)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (0.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.55)
        

</TABLE>
----

----

| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By: /s/ Kenneth Glynn                                                                                |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |              Kenneth Glynn               |
|   |              President                   |
|   |              Chief Executive Officer and |
|   |              Chief Financial Officer     |
|   |                                                                                                 |
|   |                                                                                                 |
|   |        September 22, 2010                                              |

----

----
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6006

Peabody Energy Corporation:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7571]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-206]


Southern California Edison Co., et al.; San Onofre Nuclear 
Generating Station, Unit No. 1

    Notice is hereby given that the United States Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (the Commission) is reviewing the proposed corporate 
restructuring of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), one of the 
co-owners of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1. By letter 
dated November 15, 1994, Richard A. Meserve of Covington & Burling, 
Counsel for SDG&E, informed the Commission that a corporate 
restructuring of SDG&E has been proposed that will result in the 
creation of a holding company under the temporary name SDO Parent Co., 
Inc. (``Parent Company'') of which SDG&E would become a subsidiary. 
Under the restructuring, the holders of SDG&E common stock will become 
the holders of common stock of the Parent Company on a share-by-share 
basis. After the restructuring, SDG&E will continue to be a public 
utility providing the same utility services as it did immediately prior 
to the reorganization. SDG&E will continue to be a licensee of the San 
Onofre units, and no transfer of the operating licenses or interests in 
the units will result from the restructuring. Control of the operating 
licenses for the San Onofre units, now held by SDG&E and its co-owners, 
will remain with SDG&E and the same owners and will not be affected by 
the restructuring.

    Dated at Rockville, MD, this 20th day of March 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Seymour H. Weiss,
Project Director, Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project 
Directorate, Division of Project Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95-7571 Filed 3-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
#### Arbary P. JACKSON, Appellant, v. Cranston MITCHELL, et al., Respondents.

No. WD 43903.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 14, 1991.

Arbary P. Jackson, Jefferson City, pro se.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Christine A. Alsop, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondents.

Before NUGENT, P.J., GAIT AN and TURNAGE, JJ., and WASSERSTROM, Senior Judge.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff appeals from the denial of in-junctive relief and declaratory judgment.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Order entered November 20, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 00382 - CR VINCENT RAY SETTLES, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14 - 00085 - J



### O RDER Pending is appellant Vincent Ray Settles’s “Motion for Inability to Pay Cost.” The motion is DENIED

. /s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 3.3

                                AMENDMENTS TO THE
                          PILLOWTEX CORPORATION BYLAWS

                                      * * *

     The following amendments to the Amended and Restated Bylaws of Pillowtex
Corporation (the "Bylaws") were approved by the Board of Directors of Pillowtex
Corporation on November 5, 2001:

     1.   The first sentence of Article III, Section 6 of the Bylaws was amended
          to read in its entirety as follows:

          "Vacancies and newly created directorships resulting from any increase
          in the authorized number of directors may be filled only by a majority
          of the directors then in office though less than a quorum or by a sole
          remaining director."

     2.   The first sentence of Article III, Section 11 of the Bylaws was
          amended to read in its entirety as follows:

          "At all meetings of the Board of Directors, the presence of one-third
          of the number of directors fixed in the manner provided in Section 2
          of this Article III shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of
          business, unless a different number or portion is required by law, the
          Articles of Incorporation or these Bylaws."

                                      -1-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2073

MICHAEL J. SINDRAM, 

Plaintiff – Appellant, 

v. 

PATRICIA L. HARRINGTON; DOUGLAS B. ROBELEN, State Actor; 

HON. GERALD BRUCE LEE; PHYLLIS T. WALTON; LISA GRAYSON; U.S. 

MARSHAL SERVICE; JOHN HACKMAN, 

Defendants – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District 

Judge. (1:09-cv-01082-GBL-IDD) 

Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 22, 2010

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael J. Sindram, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Michael J. Sindram appeals the district court’s order 

imposing a pre-filing injunction. We review the imposition of a 

pre-filing injunction for abuse of discretion. Cromer v. Kraft 

Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004). Federal 

courts may issue pre-filing injunctions when vexatious conduct 

hinders the court from fulfilling its constitutional duty. Id.; 

Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1073-74 (11th Cir. 1986) 

(en banc) (per curiam). Before enjoining the filing of further 

actions, however, the district court must afford the litigant 

notice and an opportunity to be heard. Cromer, 390 F.3d at 819; 

In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 446 (3d Cir. 1982). Here, the 

district court sua sponte issued the injunction. Because the 

court imposed the injunction without affording Sindram an 

opportunity to be heard, we grant Sindram’s request to proceed 

in forma pauperis on appeal, vacate the district court’s order, 

and remand for further proceedings. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

VACATED AND REMANDED
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5186 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5186

  To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to reauthorize the voluntary 
              public access and habitat incentive program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 11, 2023

 Mrs. Dingell (for herself and Mr. Johnson of South Dakota) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to reauthorize the voluntary 
              public access and habitat incentive program.

    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 ``Voluntary Public Access Improvement 
Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. VOLUNTARY PUBLIC ACCESS AND HABITAT INCENTIVE PROGRAM.

    Section 1240R(f)(1) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
3839bb-5(f)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and'' after ``2018,''; and
            (2) by inserting ``, and $150,000,000 for the period of 
        fiscal years 2024 through 2028'' before the period at the end.
                                 <all>
```
ex10-4.htm











EXHIBIT 10.4




[_______] AMENDMENT TO


RESTATED DIRECTOR RETIREMENT PLAN


FOR [_________]


 


This Third Amendment, dated as of June 24, 2011 (the “Amendment”), to the Restated Director Retirement Plan, dated as of March 1, 2004 (the “Plan”), by and between West End Bank (the “Bank”) and _____________ (the “Covered Individual”).  Capitalized terms which are not defined herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Plan.


 


WITNESSETH


 


WHEREAS, the Bank has adopted a Plan of Conversion and Reorganization pursuant to which the Bank will convert to the capital stock form of organization and become a wholly owned subsidiary of West End Indiana Bancshares, Inc. (the “Conversion”); and


 


WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Plan to provide that the Conversion will not be deemed to constitute a Change in Control.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual agreements herein set forth and such other consideration the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Bank and the Covered Individual hereby agree as follows:


 


Section 1.  New Section 1.10(E) of the Plan.  Section 1.10 of the Plan is hereby amended to add Section 1.10(E) to read in its entirety as follows:


 


“(E)       The Conversion will not constitute a Change in Control, and accordingly, the Covered Individual waives any right or claim to any payment or other benefit under the Plan that would have resulted in the event that a Change in Control did occur as a result of such transaction.”


 


Section 2.  Effectiveness.  This Amendment shall be deemed effective as of the date above written.  Except as expressly set forth herein, this Amendment shall not by implication or otherwise alter, modify, amend or in any way affect any of the terms, conditions, obligations or covenants contained in the Plan, all of which are ratified and affirmed in all respects and shall continue in full force and effect and shall be otherwise unaffected.


 


Section 3.  Governing Law.  This Amendment and the rights and obligations hereunder shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Indiana, to the extent such laws are not preempted by the Act and valid regulations published thereunder.


 


Section 4.  Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.


 




  





  











  






 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bank and the Covered Individual have duly executed this Amendment as of the day and year first written above.


 



	 	WEST END BANK
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	Name:
	 	 	Title:
	 	 	 
	 	COVERED INDIVIDUAL
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Coleman, Willis and Senior Judge Hodges 

Argued at Salem, Virginia 

RUSSELL COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER 

and 

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 1971-94-3 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

 MAY 9, 1995 

CURTIS E. CHANEY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 Christen W. Burkholder (Woodward, Miles & 

Flannagan, P.C., on briefs), for appellants. 

 Gregory R. Herrell (Arrington, Schelin & 

Herrell, P.C., on brief), for appellee. 

 Russell County Medical Center and Continental Casualty 

Company appeal the decision of the Virginia Workers' Compensation 

Commission awarding Curtis E. Chaney temporary total disability 

benefits from April 20, 1993 to August 13, 1993 and the 

reasonable cost of medical care. Russell County Medical Center 

contends that Chaney's injury did not arise out of his employment 

as required by Code § 65.2-101. We find no error and affirm. 

 "In order for an injured worker to recover under the 

[Workers' Compensation] Act, he must prove an injury by accident 

'arising out of and in the course of the employment.'" County of 

Chesterfield v. Johnson, 237 Va. 180, 183, 376 S.E.2d 73, 75 

(1989). An injury does not arise out of employment if it is 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

caused by "a hazard to which the employee would have been equally 

exposed apart from the employment." Id.

 Preparing to give an injection to a patient suffering an 

anaphylactic reaction, Chaney was walking down the hall while 

reading the patient's chart. He reached up to rub his head and 

because his attention was focused on the chart, he failed to see 

a door jamb. He struck his elbow on the jamb, causing his 

knuckle to injure his eye. 

 The commission found that "[w]alking while reading a chart 

is a hazard created by the circumstances of the job." The 

evidence supports this finding. 

 The judgment of the commission is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6069

Apergy ESP Systems, LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel