alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1
I, Henry J. Fuchs, M.D. certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin 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 andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluations;and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: March 10, 2005     /s/ Henry J. Fuchs       Henry J. Fuchs, M.D.   Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12097]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-122-605]


Color Picture Tubes From Canada; Notice of Termination of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Termination of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review.

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

SUMMARY: On February 20, 1996, the Department of Commerce (the 
Department) published in the Federal Register (61 FR 6347) a notice 
announcing the initiation of an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on color picture tubes from Canada covering the 
period January 1, 1995, through December 31, 1995, and one 
manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Mitsubishi 
Electronics Industries Canada, Inc. (Mitsubishi). This review has now 
been terminated as a result of the withdrawal of the request for 
administrative review by the interested parties.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 14, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valerie Turoscy, Office of Antidumping 
Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 31, 1996, we received a request from the petitioners in 
this case, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace 
Workers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the 
International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and 
Furniture Workers, the United Steelworkers of America, the AFL-CIO, and 
the Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO (the Unions), to conduct an 
administrative review of Mitsubishi pursuant to section 19 CFR 
353.22(a)(1994) of the Department's regulations. On February 20, 1996, 
we published in the Federal Register (61 FR 6347) the notice of 
initiation of administrative review.

Termination of Review

    On April 26, 1996, we received a timely request for withdrawal of 
the request for administrative review from the Unions. Because there 
were no other requests for administrative review from any other 
interested party, in accordance with section 353.22(a)(5) of the 
Department's regulations, we have terminated this administrative 
review.
    This notice is published in accordance with section 751 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675) and 19 CFR 
353.22(a)(5).

    Dated: May 7, 1996.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary For Compliance.
[FR Doc. 96-12097 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
1 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, this 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 March 29, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 03-10602

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Appellant,

versus ANTHONY RAY ALLEN, Defendant/Appellee.

_____________________ No. 03-10611

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Appellant,

versus BILLY GENE MOORE, Defendant/Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division

District Court Cause No. 3:02-CR-301

_________________________________________________________________ Before JONES, WIENER and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 1 PER CURIAM. The court has considered the appellant's argument in lightof oral argument, the briefs and pertinent portions of the

record. Having done so, we find no reversible error and affirm for essentially the reasons stated by the district court. AFFIRMED.
#### Mary Amelia Hutchins TRIESTMAN, Katherine Ann Hutchins Johnson and Ameritrust Texas N.A., Petitioners, v. Nancy Hutchins KILGORE, Respondent.

No. D-2609.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 14, 1992.

Kathryn F. Green, Scott L. Sherman, Richard L. Seshin, Lance K. Bruun, Corpus Christi, for petitioners.

C.M. Henkel, III, N.J. Welsh, III, Corpus Christi, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This case involves the probate of the will of William Merritt Hutchins, deceased. The probate court admitted the will to probate. Nancy Hutchins Kilgore, a named legatee under the will, appealed the probate order by writ of error. The court of appeals reversed the probate order, holding that there was no evidence presented by the will proponents that the attesting witnesses were credible on that date. 829 S.W.2d 295, 299-300.

The Probate Code requires every last will and testament, if not wholly in the handwriting of the testator, to be attested by two or more “credible witnesses.” Tex. Prob.Code Ann. § 59(a) (Vernon Supp. 1992). It is long settled that “credible witness” is synonymous with “competent witness.” *Lehmann v. Krahl,*155 Tex. 270, 285 S.W.2d 179, 180 (1955); *Gamble v. Butchee,*87 Tex. 643, 30 S.W. 861 (1895); *Kennedy v. Upshaw,*66 Tex. 442, 1 S.W. 308 (1886); *Brown v. Pridgen,*56 Tex. 124 (1882); *Nixon v. Armstrong,*38 Tex. 296 (1873). A competent witness to a will is one who receives no pecuniary benefit under its terms. *Scandurro v. Beto,*234 S.W.2d 695, 698 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco 1950, no writ). *See also Lehmann,*285 S.W.2d at 180 (husband credible witness to will under which wife was legatee); *Gamble,*30 S.W. at 862 (wife credible witness to will under which husband was legatee). Conversely, a person interested as taking under a will is incompetent to testify to establish it. *See*Tex.Prob.Code Ann. § 61; *Fowler v. Stagner,*55 Tex. 393, 397 (1881); *Nixon,*38 Tex. at 298.

The court of appeals held that no evidence was presented that the subscribing witnesses were credible or competent. The purported will was admitted into evidence. The will provides no pecuniary benefit to either witness. The will itself constitutes some evidence that the witnesses were credible to attest the will at the time the will was executed.

In denying petitioners’ application for writ of error, we disapprove of the court of appeals’ analysis regarding the credibility *548or competence of the attesting witnesses. The application for writ of error is denied.
#### Benito TALAMANTEZ, Relator, v. Olin B. STRAUSS, Judge, 81st District Court, Wilson County, Respondent.

No. C-8672.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 28, 1989.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 1989.

Larry A. Vick, Houston, for relator.

Stella Saxon, Alger H. Kendall, Jr., Karnes, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Benito Talamantez, a county commissioner for Wilson County, was convicted of official misconduct. The trial judge included in the judgment an order removing Tala-*662mantez from office. *See*Tex. Local Gov’t Code § 87.031. However, all the acts for which Talamantez was convicted were committed prior to his reelection on November 8,1988. Therefore, under section 87.001 of the Local Government Code,' Talamantez cannot be removed from office based on those acts.

The trial judge’s order of removal is directly contrary to section 87.001 of the Local Government Code. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 122 and without hearing oral argument, we conditionally grant Talamantez’ petition for writ of mandamus. The writ will issue only if Judge Strauss fails to vacate his order of removal.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50493 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. DIEGO EMILIO TABORDA-PATINO Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-2603-ALL Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing theJudgment in a Criminal Case, Diego Emilio Taborda-Patino raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torresv. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. U nited Statesv. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 3, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-10280

2 Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and thejudgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.1


Cascade Microtech, Inc.

2006 Executive Compensation Plan

for the Six-Month Period Ending December 31,
2006


Participants


	
  Eric Strid

  	
   

  	
  Chief Executive Officer
  and President

  	
   

  
	
  Steven
  Sipowicz

  	
   

  	
  Chief Financial
  Officer, Vice President of Finance, Treasurer and Corporate Secretary

  	
   

  
	
  John
  Pence

  	
   

  	
  Vice President and
  General Manager, Engineering Products Division

  	
   

  
	
  Bruce McFadden

  	
   

  	
  Vice President and General Manager, Production Probe Division

  	
   

  



 


Performance Criteria


Bonuses
for these participants are calculated on a percentage of their base salary
based on attainment of planned levels of net income, operating income and
divisional revenue.  Determinations as to whether the performance targets
have been met are made quarterly, with respect to 20% of the bonus, and
semi-annually, with respect 80% of the bonus.


This
table lists the portion of the total bonus payout that is based on the
different performance measures, for each executive:


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  Semi-annual 80%

  	
   

  	
  Quarterly

  20%

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Operating

  income

  	
   

  	
  Engineering

  products

  revenue

  	
   

  	
  Production

  probes revenue

  	
   

  	
  Quarterly

  Objectives

  	
   

  
	
  Chief Executive
  Officer

  	
   

  	
  60

  	
  %

  	
  10

  	
  %

  	
  10

  	
  %

  	
  20

  	
  %

  
	
  Chief Financial
  Officer

  	
   

  	
  60

  	
  %

  	
  10

  	
  %

  	
  10

  	
  %

  	
  20

  	
  %

  
	
  VP Engineering
  Products

  	
   

  	
  60

  	
  %

  	
  20

  	
  %

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  20

  	
  %

  
	
  VP Production Probe

  	
   

  	
  60

  	
  %

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  20

  	
  %

  	
  20

  	
  %

  



 


In the
cases of operating income, and product line revenues, the period of the
performance measures will be for the second half of 2006 (last two quarters).


The
payout for the operating income portion will be:


·                  100%
payout for achievement of 100% of the planned consolidated operating income (“target”)


·                  Linear
from 50% payout for operating income at 50% of target to 100% payout at 100% of
target and higher


·                  Zero
for operating income below 50% of target


The
payout for the product line revenue portion will be:


·                  100%
payout for achievement of 100% of the planned respective consolidated product
line revenue (“target”)


·                  Linear
from 0% payout for product line revenues at 50% of target to 200% payout at
150% of target


·                  200%
payout for product line revenues above 150% of target


·                  Zero
for product line revenues below 50% of target


The
payout for quarterly objectives will be proportional to the fraction of
quarterly objectives completed. The CEO is the final arbiter of such completion
status. A set of quarterly objectives is formulated by a consensus of the
management team for each executive at the beginning of each quarter.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00442

- CV

In the Interest of S

. L. L., a Child

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law of Aransas County , Texas Trial Cause No. A

- 18

- 7062

- FL

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observance. Janu ary 9, 2020
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 17 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 2265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1093]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, and 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 9622(d)(2), notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree 
in United States v. Pneumo Abex Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 
2:96-CV-27, was lodged on January 4, 1996 with the United States 
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The decree 
requires Pneumo Abex, with assistance from the City of Portsmouth, 
Virginia and the Portsmouth Redevelopment and Housing Authority, to 
perform operable unit one of the cleanup of the Abex Superfund site 
located in Portsmouth. The decree also requires Abex to reimburse past 
costs of response incurred by the United States.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6973(d), the 
Department will also hold a public meeting concerning the settlement 
near the site, if such a meeting is requested.
    Comments, and any request for a public meeting, should be addressed 
to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural 
Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and 
should refer to United States v. Pneumo Abex Corporation, et al., DOJ 
Ref. # 90-11-3-255A.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Office of the 
United States Attorney, U.S. Court House, 600 Granby Street, Norfolk, 
VA 23510; the Region III Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107; and at the Consent 
Decree Library, 1120 G Street NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, 
202-624-0892. A copy of the proposed consent decree may be obtained in 
person or by mail from the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street NW., 
4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005. In requesting a copy, please refer to 
the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $46.25 (25 
cents per page reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree 
Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environmental and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 96-1093 Filed 1-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
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-2018-0025-7840

Alps Electric (North America), Inc:

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
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United Stated Code), each of the
undersigned officers of TOP Group Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the
"Form 10-KSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:   March 15, 2004                         /s/ Song Ru-Hua
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Song Ru-Hua, President

Dated:   March 15, 2004                         /s/ Zhou Zong-Zheng
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Zhou Zong-Zheng, Treasurer



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter
63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of a separate
disclosure document.
Second Amendment



 Exhibit 10.1 
 SECOND AMENDMENT 
 TO THE 
 ENTRAVISION COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION 
 2004 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

 This Second Amendment to the Entravision Communications Corporation 2004 Equity Incentive Plan (“Amendment”) is made
effective as of July 13, 2006 by Entravision Communications Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). All capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment shall be defined as set forth in the Plan. 
 WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Entravision Communications Corporation 2004 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); 
 WHEREAS, the Plan currently provides for automatic grants of options to non-employee directors and a minimum three-year vesting period for restricted
stock and restricted stock units; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to eliminate the automatic option grants for
directors and to eliminate the three-year minimum vesting period for restricted stock and restricted stock units. 
  

	1.	NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that effective as of July 13, 2006, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 

  

	 	(a)	The provisions of Section 7(b), which provides for the automatic grant of options to non-employee directors, shall no longer apply. Any options granted pursuant to such section
prior to the date hereof shall remain outstanding and shall remain subject to the terms of the Plan, including Section 7(b). 

  

	 	(b)	Section 10(b), relating to the vesting requirements for restricted stock and restricted stock units, shall read in its entirety as follows: 

 “The period of time over which the restrictions imposed on Restricted Stock will lapse and the vesting of Restricted Stock Units will occur, and
whether, as a condition for the Participant to realize all or a portion of the benefit provided under the Award, one or more Performance Goals must be achieved during such period as the Committee specifies.” 
  

	2.	All Other Provisions of the Plan Remain the Same. Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, all other terms, conditions and obligations contained in the Plan shall
remain unchanged and in full force and effect as provided for in the Plan. 

 [remainder of page intentionally left blank]

  







 To record the adoption of this Amendment by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the
Company effective July 13, 2006, the Company has caused its authorized officer to execute the same. 
  

			
	 ENTRAVISION COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION

		
	By:	 	/S/    WALTER F.
ULLOA        
	 Name:
	 	Walter F. Ulloa
	 Title:
	 	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


 [Signature Page to Second Amendment to the Entravision Communications Corporation 2004
Equity Incentive Plan] 
  

 -2-
Case 2:17-cr-01447-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:17-cr-01447-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/27/17 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:17-cr-01447-DLR Document 1 Filed 09/27/17 Page 3 of 3