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

                                CERTIFICATIONS

I, William Tay, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Greater China
Acquisition Corp.;

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 small business issuer's other certifying officers 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 small business issuer
and have:

   (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.


Date: October 24, 2007

GREATER CHINA ACQUISITION CORP.


/s/ William Tay
-------------------------------
William Tay, President and CEO
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CR-18-422-PHX-SMB 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

EXTEND DEADLINE AND PAGELIMIT FOR REPLY TO RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS INDICTMENT

 (Second Request for Extension of Time) 

Based on Defendants’ Motion to Extend Deadline and Page Limit for Reply 

to Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Indictment, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the motion and extending the deadline for 

Defendants to reply to the Government’s Response to Motion to Dismiss Indictment 

(Doc. 634) to July 17, 2019, and allowing Defendants no more than 30 pages for their 

reply. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. 

Excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) may occur as a result of this motion 

or an order based thereon. 

DATED this day of , 20 . 

HON. SUSAN M. BRNOVICH 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 651-1 Filed 06/22/19 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1







Certification of the Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to


§240.13a−14 or §240.15d−14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended





I, Frank L. Jaksch Jr., certify that:





1. I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10−Q/A of ChromaDex Corporation;





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;








Date: October 12, 2011


/s/ FRANK L. JAKSCH JR


Frank L. Jaksch Jr.


Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2    CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report (the Report) on the Form 10-Q of Siga Resources, Inc. (the Company) for the three months ended January 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Bob Hogarth, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  1. The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.   Date: October 2, 2013  /s/ Bob Hogarth Bob Hogarth Chief Accounting Officer Chief Financial Officer and Director
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOSE OROZCO,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08-13810

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

CITY OF MONROE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND

AND AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint, filed April 2, 2009, and

Defendant’s motion to extend all court dates, filed March 30, 2009. Plaintiff concurs in the

relief sought in Defendant’s motion; Defendant has not filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion. 

Pursuant to L.R. 7.1(e)(2), the court did not hear oral argument.

Plaintiff seeks to add Michael Soave as a plaintiff to this action, in which Plaintiff alleges

that the City of Monroe rezoned his property without providing him with the required notice. 

Soave is a co-owner of the property at issue; his claims against Defendant are identical to those

already asserted by Plaintiff. Because Defendant does not allege that it would be prejudiced or

that the amendment would create undue delay, the court finds that leave to amend should be

granted pursuant to Rule 15(a). See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s April 2, 2009 motion to amend

is GRANTED, consistent with the court’s ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment

issued May 1, 2009. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to extend dates is GRANTED. 

5:08-cv-13810-JCO-DAS Doc # 17 Filed 05/04/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 152
-2-

The scheduling order is amended as follows:

Discovery must be completed by: July 1, 2009

Dispositive motion cutoff: August 3, 2009

Joint final pretrial order due: October 16, 2009

Final pretrial conference: October 21, 2009, at 2:30 p.m. 

Trailing trial term begins: November 3, 2009

SO ORDERED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara

United States District Judge

Date: May 4, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on

this date, May 4, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz

Case Manager

5:08-cv-13810-JCO-DAS Doc # 17 Filed 05/04/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 153
EX-10.6



 Exhibit 10.6 

January 24, 2014 
 Mr. Howard S.
Frank 
 Carnival Corporation 
 3655 NW 87th Avenue 
 Miami, FL 33178 
  

	 	RE:	Consulting Arrangement 

 Dear Howard: 

This letter will confirm the agreement between Carnival Corporation and Carnival plc (collectively “Carnival”) and you whereby the
parties agree to enter into a consulting arrangement. Specifically, you agree to serve in an advisory capacity to the Chairman of the Board (“Chairman”) and the President and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”). In your advisory
capacity, you agree to make yourself reasonably available for consultation, meetings, and travel as well as other company-related responsibilities such as serving as the Chairman of the Board of Cruise Line International Association
(“CLIA”) or other Board memberships or duties as requested by the Chairman and CEO. 
 In consideration for your service, Carnival
shall pay you $575,000.00 annually and such payment shall be compensation for all services under this Agreement as described above. Payment shall be made on a monthly basis. Any travel expenses shall be reimbursed consistent with the travel policy
for executives of Carnival. Carnival shall provide you with office support including secretarial support and office space upon request. 

As a consultant, you will no longer be an employee of Carnival and except as otherwise set forth herein, will not receive any benefits from
the company other than those previously agreed to and set forth in the Separation Agreement entered into with Carnival which is dated January 27, 2014, (“Separation Agreement”). You shall not be covered by the company’s
worker’s compensation and you will be responsible for payment of any taxes. 
 However, during the term of this Agreement, you may
retain the performance-based restricted stock unit grants made on January 19, 2011; April 11, 2012 and July 16, 2013 (the “PBS Grants”) according to their terms and conditions. Upon expiration or termination of this
Agreement, any unreleased PBS Grants shall immediately expire. 







 This agreement shall be for a one year period, commencing on December 1, 2013 and
terminating on November 30, 2014. This Agreement will automatically renew for an additional one year period, unless and until either party provides the other with 60 days notice of its intent not to renew. Carnival may however, terminate this
Agreement with five days written notice in the event you violate any of the terms of this Agreement or the Separation Agreement. In the event of early termination, all unpaid fees hereunder shall immediately cease and shall no longer be owed. 

Please indicate your acceptance of these terms by signing where indicated below. 

 

	
	Sincerely,
	
	CARNIVAL CORPORATION
	
	/s/ Jerry Montgomery
	Jerry Montgomery
	Senior Vice President
	Global Human Resources


 ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO: 
  

					
			
	/s/ Howard S. Frank	 	  
	 	1/27/14
	Howard S. Frank	 		 	Dated
Case 2:08-cv-14669-SFC-MJH ECF No. 31 filed 03/22/10 PageID.279 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:08-cv-14669-SFC-MJH ECF No. 31 filed 03/22/10 PageID.280 Page 2 of 2
#### Levada HUGHES, Petitioner, v. HABITAT APARTMENTS, Respondent.

No. D-3519.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Sept. 10, 1993.

James B. Pinson, Austin, Robert W. Dog-gett, Dallas, for petitioner.

C. Bryan Dunklin, Dallas, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this case is whether a pauper’s affidavit suffices as a pro se answer, entitling a defendant to notice of a hearing on a motion for default judgment. Ms. Hughes, a pro se defendant, orally answered Habitat’s allegations in a forcible entry and detainer action in the justice court. Habitat prevailed, and Ms. Hughes appealed. Pursuant to her appeal in the county court, she filed a pauper’s affidavit but failed to file a written answer as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 753. Thus, the county court granted a default judgment in favor of Habitat, although Ms. Hughes was never notified of the hearing. The court of appeals affirmed the default judgment, holding that a pauper’s affidavit did not entitle Ms. Hughes to notice of the hearing.

In *Smith v. Lippmann,*we held that a defendant’s signed letter to the court clerk *873confirming receipt of the citation, identifying the case and parties, and providing the defendant’s current address, sufficed as a pro se answer, entitling the defendant to notice of any further proceedings in the case. 826 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.1992) (per curiam). Under these circumstances, because the pauper’s affidavit supplied the type of information we found adequate for a pro se answer in *Lippmann,*we hold that Ms. Hughes was entitled to notice of the hearing on Habitat’s motion for default judgment.

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 170, without hearing oral argument, a majority of the court grants the application for writ of error, reverses the judgment of the court of appeals, and remands the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ENOCH, J., not sitting.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. Honorable Sean F. Cox

Antonio Hill, Cr. Case No. 08-30438

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER

This matter is currently before the Court on the Government’s motion for review of

Magistrate Judge Steven Pepe’s Order Setting Conditions of Release for Defendant. As stated

on the record on October 24, 2008, this Court does not believe that the Government has met its

burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that there is no condition, or

combination of conditions, that will assure the safety of the community. Nevertheless, the Court

concludes, after considering the applicable factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), such as

Defendant’s criminal history, that a firearm is involved, and that Defendant was on probation at

the time of arrest, that the conditions of release shall also include the posting of a $10,000.000

secured bond.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: October 24, 2008

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

October 24, 2008, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager
Order entered September 16, 2014

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 00627

- CR

DEON REESE EVANS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial C ourt Cause No. F

- 1228191

- U



### O RDER

The Court has before it appellee The State of Texas’s September 12, 2014 second motion

for extension of time to file its brief. We GRANT the motion and DIRECT the Clerk to file the

brief appellee contemporaneously tender ed with its motion as of the date of this order.

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE

PRESIDING JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 125 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16276]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

[SF 2817]


Proposed Collection; Comment Request Review of a New Information 
Collection

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management will be submitting to the Office of Management and 
Budget a request for clearance of a new information collection. SF 
2817, Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Election, is used to 
enroll or change elections under the Federal Employees' Group Life 
Insurance Program. This form is proposed for clearance because Federal 
employees and retirees can now assign (give up ownership) of their 
insurance coverage. Assignees may now use the SF 2817 to make election 
changes to decrease the employee's or retiree's coverage. Since 
assignees are members of the public, OMB clearance is now required for 
this form. We are clearing this form for assignees only.
    We estimate 100 forms are completed annually by assignees. Each 
form takes approximately 15 minutes to complete. The annual estimated 
burden is 25 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Jim Farron on (202) 418-3208, 
or E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d0babdb6b1a2a2bfbe90bdb1b9bcfebfa0bdfeb7bfa6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a2c8cfc4c3d0d0cdcce2cfc3cbce8ccdd2cf8cc5cdd4">[email protected]</span></a>

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before August 
26, 1996.

ADDRESS: Send or deliver comments to--Kenneth H. Glass, Chief, 
Insurance Operations Division, Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S. 
Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW, Room 3415, 
Washington, DC 20415-0001.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION--CONTACT:
Mary Beth Smith-Toomey, Management Services Division, (202) 606-0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Lorraine A. Green,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 96-16276 Filed 6-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 127 (Monday, July 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16649]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Center for Environmental Health; Meeting

    The National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), of the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will convene the following 
meeting cosponsored by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry 
and the American Heart Association.

    Name: Frontiers in Lipid and Lipoprotein Research: Basic 
Science, Analytical, Clinical, and Public Health Applications.
    Times and Dates: 8 a.m.-5 p.m., October 4, 1996; 8 a.m.-5 p.m., 
October 5, 1996; 8 a.m.-12 noon, October 6, 1996.
    Place: Renaissance Hotel--Dallas, 2222 Stemmons Freeway, Dallas, 
Texas 75207, telephone 214/631-2222.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. 
The meeting room accommodates approximately 500 people.
    Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to provide a forum for 
presentation of recent advances in lipid and lipoprotein research by 
recognized experts in the areas of clinical practice, biochemistry, 
analytical measurement, and public health.
    Matters To Be Discussed: Agenda includes: significant advances 
in lipid and lipoprotein research and new observations that are of 
critical importance to clinical practice and public health; an 
integrated review of relevant advances in basic science, measurement 
technology, epidemiological and clinical research, and public health 
practice to clearly define the state of the art for understanding 
and preventing morbidity and mortality due to heart disease.
    Contact Persons For More Information: Mary M. Kimberly, Ph.D., 
Research Chemist, Special Activities Branch, Division of 
Environmental Health Laboratory Sciences, M/S F25, NCEH, CDC, 4770 
Buford Highway, NE., Chamblee, Georgia 30341-3724, telephone 770/
488-4683, or Paula M. Steiner, Medical Research Laboratories, 2 
Tesseneer Drive, Highland Heights, Kentucky 41076, telephone 606/
781-8877 extension 252, fax 606/781-9310.

    Dated: June 24, 1996.
Carolyn J. Russell,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC).
[FR Doc. 96-16649 Filed 6-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-M
```
J-A13012-16

2017 PA Super 8

BARBARA A. DITTMAN, GARY R. 

DOUGLAS, ALICE PASTIRIK, JOANN 

DECOLATI, TINA SORRENTINO, KRISTEN 

CUSHMAN AND SHANNON MOLYNEAUX, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL 

OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellants

v.

UPMC D/B/A THE UNIVERSITY OF 

PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER, AND 

UPMC MCKEESPORT

Appellees No. 971 WDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered May 28, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Civil Division at No: GD14-003285

BEFORE: OLSON, STABILE, and MUSMANNO, JJ.

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY STABILE, J.: FILED JANUARY 12, 2017

I join the Majority’s opinion today, but write merely to express my 

view that in this constantly developing area of law and technology we must 

proceed to establish precedent slowly and with caution. Today’s decision 

should stand for no more than the conclusion that a legal duty was not found 

to exist under the facts as pled in this case. As the Majority notes, the 

Appellants failed to make allegations of specific threats and problems with 

UPMC’s computer system to alter the finding of no duty in this case. See 

Maj. Op. at 8 n.4 (citing In re: The Home Depot, Inc. Customer Data 

Security Breach Litigation, 2016 WL 2897520 (N.D. Ga., May 18, 2016)). 
J-A13012-16

- 2 -

Had UPMC been on notice of actual or potential security breaches of its 

systems, or reasonably should have anticipated that the negligent handling 

of confidential information would have left it vulnerable to criminal activity,1

a different conclusion may have been reached under the factors of the 

Althaus2test. 

I also agree under the second factor of the Althaus test that there is 

significant social utility in companies like UPMC being able to store 

information electronically. The entire world is moving towards electronic 

storage of information. With this will come a greater awareness of what is 

reasonable in terms of the care and storage of confidential information. At 

some point, the balance of weighing social utility in favor of data storage 

entities may shift more in favor of persons like Appellants. When harm 

becomes foreseeable under circumstances that commonly are understood to 

render storage vulnerable, the fourth Althaus factor may weigh in favor of 

imposing additional duties upon an actor even absent legislative action. As 

for the fifth and final factor under the Althaus test (the overall public 

interest), I believe that this factor too may shift as the foreseeability of harm 

changes with the evolution and increased use of this technology.

Judge Olson joins this Concurring Statement.

____________________________________________

1 As the Majority notes, citing Mahon v. Am-Guard, Inc., 841 A.2d 1052, 

1060-1061 (Pa. Super. 2003).

2 Althaus v. Cohen, 756 A.2d 1166 (Pa. 2000).