alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)
      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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures 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;
andc)
    
    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
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Gordon F. DuGanGordon F. DuGanChief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 45434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17874]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Membership of Performance Review Board for Senior 
Executives (PRB)

July 29, 2008.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby provides notice of 
the membership of its Performance Review Board (PRB) for the 
Commission's Senior Executive Service (SES) members. The function of 
this board is to make recommendations relating to the performance of 
senior executives in the Commission. This action is undertaken in 
accordance with Title 5, U.S.C., section 4314(c)(4). The Commission's 
PRB will remove the following member: John S. Moot.
    And will add the following member: Joseph H. McClelland.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17874 Filed 8-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CORIELLE JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICIA CARUSO, ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 09-10910

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL J. HLUCHANIUK

 /

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [67] AND

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [53] AND

[62] AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT[68]

Before the Court are Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment [53] and [62], filed on May

5, 2011, and July 6, 2011, respectively. On January 23, 2012, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk issued

a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [67] recommending that Defendants’ motions be

GRANTED. Plaintiff filed an Objection [70] on February 9, 2012. 

This Court reviews objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on a

dispositive motion de novo. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)©. Making some objections to a Report and

Recommendation, but failing to raise others, will not preserve all objections a party may have to the

report and recommendation. McClanahan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir. 2006).

Objections must be specific. Frontier Ins. Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596 (6th Cir. 2006). 

In his Objection, Plaintiff merely repeats the allegations and arguments set out in the complaint

and response to motion for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

thoroughly explores and rejects said allegations and arguments. Plaintiff’s objection raises no new

2:09-cv-10910-AJT-MJH Doc # 72 Filed 03/16/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 498
2

issues of fact or law. Plaintiff also fails to demonstrate that the reasoning of the Report and

Recommendation is incorrect.

The Court having reviewed the record in this case, the Opinion and Order of the Magistrate

Judge is hereby ADOPTED and is entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment [53] and [62] are

GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

 s/Arthur J. Tarnow

 Arthur J. Tarnow

Senior United States District Judge

_______________________________________________________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on March 16, 2012 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk

of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered electronically. I hereby certify

that a copy of this paper was mailed to the following non-registered ECF participants on March 16,

2012: Corielle Johnson.

s/Michael E. Lang 

Deputy Clerk to 

District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow

(313) 234-5182

2:09-cv-10910-AJT-MJH Doc # 72 Filed 03/16/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 499
Summary Translation	Exhibit 4.54


 


Loan Agreement


 


  Contract No. :ABC(2012)1011-1 13062020130000301


 


Borrower
: Shijie Kaiyuan Auto Trade Co., Ltd.


Lender :
Agricultural Bank of China, Shijiazhuang North City Branch


 


Signing Date : April 19, 2013


 


Loan Amount
: RMB100,000,000


 


Length of
maturity : From April 19, 2013 to October 13,2013


 


Use of Loan
: Vehicle Purchase


 


Loan Interest : 6.16%


 


Date of Draft :April 19, 2013


 


Withdrawal
Amount : RMB100,000,000


 


Payment Method : The principal shall be fully repaid with interest
at the maturity date of the loan.


.


Repayment
Date :October r13,2013


 


Loan Guarantee : Guaranty of Pledge


- Shijie Kaiyuan Auto Trade Co., Ltd. make pledge account receivable
to Agricultural Bank of China, Shijiazhuang North City Branch, with the contract no. ABC(2012)1011-6 2013041902
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No.12-40792 USDC No. 2:11-CV-330

ANTONIO M. LACY, Petitioner-Appellant

v. RI C K T HAL E R , D I R E C T O R , T E X A S D E PARTM E N T O F C R I M I N AL J U S T I C E , CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

Before JOLLY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * A n tonio M. Lacy, Texas prisoner # 594575, seeks a certificate o f appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s d i s missal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his prison disciplinary conviction. He contends that his liberty and property interests were implicated by the de n i a l o f procedural due process in conne c tion with his disciplinary hearing. His punishment included a reprimand, 45 days of commissary and cell restriction, a reduction in U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novembe r 16, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-40792 Document: 00512056124 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2012No. 12-40792

time-earning status, and the subsequent forfeiture of $200 from his inmate trust fund account. With regard to his liberty interest claims, Lacy has n o t shown “that

r e a s o n able jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitution al claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). With regard to Lacy’s claim t h a t t h e f o rfeiture of $200 infringed his property interests, the district court should have entertained the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Eubanks v. McCotter , 802 F.2d 790, 793 (5th Cir. 1986); see also Serio v . M e m b ers of La. St. Bd. of Pardons , 821 F.2d 1112, 1119 (5th Cir.1987). The court’s determination that the proper defendant could not be determined is incorrect as Lacy’s pleadings indicate Warden Jackson and Sgt. D. Mayer were involved in the forfeiture. Additionally, the Parratt/Hudson d octrine does not bar Lacy’s due process claim because the prison off i c i a l s ’ actions in this case were pursuant to routine disciplinar y p rocedure. See Zinermon v. Burch , 494 U.S. 113, 115 (1990). We therefore DENY the motion for a COA in part, GRANT the motion for

a COA i n p a r t , VACATE the district court’s judgment, and REMAND for the district cour t to consider only Lacy’s claim regarding the infringement of his property interest w i t h o ut procedural due process. See Whitehead v. Johnson , 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998).

2 Case: 12-40792 Document: 00512056124 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2012
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

        Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003 (Section 1350
of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned
officers of A.C. Moore Arts & Crafts, Inc. (the "Company") does hereby certify
with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") that:

        (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.

Date:  March 16, 2005                         By:  /s/ John E. Parker
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   John E. Parker
                                                   Chief Executive Officer


Date:  March 16, 2005                         By:  /s/ Leslie H. Gordon
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Leslie H. Gordon
                                                   Chief Financial Officer

        The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.
exhibit_4-10.htm










EXHIBIT 4.10







Summary – Directors Compensation


General


 


The following table sets forth all cash and cash-equivalent compensation we paid with respect to all of our non-employee directors as a group for the periods indicated:


 



	  	 	
Salaries, fees,



commissions and bonuses



	 	 	


Pension, retirement



and similar benefits



	 
	
All non-employee directors as a group, consisting of 5 persons* for the year ended December 31, 2013

	 	$	72,000	 	 	 	--	 





 


* Excluding Shimon Alon, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. For details, see Item 6B of the annual report.


 


In accordance with the approval of our shareholders, all non-employee directors, including outside directors, receive an annual fee of $9,000 and an attendance fee of NIS 1,650 (equivalent to approximately $475) per meeting attended, linked to the Israeli Consumer Price Index (“CPI”). Following the approval of our shareholders in December 26, 2013 the annual fee of all non-employee directors, including outside directors, was increased to $15,000, starting with 2014.


 


In November 2011, our Audit Committee and Board of Directors adopted a revised stock option policy for non-employee directors, which policy was subsequently approved by our shareholders. According to the stock option policy, each of our non-employee directors who may serve from time to time, including our outside directors, will be granted options, as follows:


 



	
  

	
·

	
a grant of options under our stock option plans to purchase 20,000 ordinary shares, which vest in three equal installments over three years;







 



	
  

	
·

	
the exercise price of all options will be equal to the fair market value of the ordinary shares on the date of the grant (i.e., the closing price of our shares on the date of the annual general meeting of shareholders in which such director is elected or reelected); and







 



	
  

	
·

	
the portion of outstanding options scheduled to vest during any year in which the director’s service with us is terminated or expires will accelerate and become fully vested and exercisable for a period of 180 days thereafter, unless termination was due to the director’s resignation or for one of the causes set forth in the Companies Law.







 


Other than the foregoing fees, reimbursement for expenses and the award of stock options, we do not compensate our directors for serving on our board of directors.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

434 

KA 13-01647 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL E. HAUG, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DAVID A. HERATY OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P.

Franczyk, J.), rendered January 30, 2013. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of vehicular assault in the first

degree and driving while intoxicated, a misdemeanor. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, vehicular assault in the first

degree (Penal Law § 120.04 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention,

the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and

intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v

Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), and that valid waiver encompasses his

challenge to the severity of the sentence (see generally People v

Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737). 

Entered: May 1, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
mine_ex101.htm


Exhibit 10.1




 



	
Minerco Resources, Inc.


20 Trafalgar Square, Suite 455


Nashua, NH 03063

	 





 


April 8, 2014


 







 


VIA FACSIMILE (718) 732-4512


 


LG Capital Funding LLC


1218 Union St. Suite #2


Brooklyn, NY 11225


Fax 718-732-4512


Attn: Joseph Lerman - Managing Member







Re:           Notice of Repayment of Convertible Promissory Note


 


Dear Mr. Lerman:


 


Reference is made to the Note in the principal amount of $52,000 issued on October 16, 2013 by Minerco Resources, Inc.  (“Borrower”) to LG Capital Funding, LLC (“Lender”).  This letter shall serve as notice under Section 1.9 of the Note that (i) the Borrower is exercising its right to prepay the Note; (ii) the date of the prepayment shall be April 11, 2014; and (iii) upon payment of the Optional Prepayment Amount the Note shall be paid in full and Borrower shall have no remaining obligations thereunder. This letter shall serve as written notice of the prepayment of the Note as delivered to you in accordance with Section 4.2 of the Note.







We acknowledge and agree that on or before April 11, 2014, the Optional Prepayment Date, we will make payment to your order of an amount equal to equal to one hundred fifty percent (150%), multiplied by the sum of: (w) the outstanding principal amount of the Note plus (x) accrued and unpaid interest on the unpaid principal amount of the Note to the Optional Prepayment Date plus (y) Default Interest, if any, on the amounts referred to in clauses (w) and (x) plus (z) any amounts owed to the Holder pursuant to Sections 1.3 and 1.4(g) of the Note.  All capitalized terms have the meaning set forth in the Note.







Thank you.


 





	 	 	Sincerely,	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
 

	

John F. Powers

	 
	 	 	

President

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 







 


cc:           Gracin & Marlow, LLP (via facsimile (212) 208-4657)


 


Taliesin Durant, Esq. (via facsimile tali@dart-services.com)
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Orville O. MILLER, Appellant.

No. WD 46900.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 14, 1993.

Theodore D. Barnes, Independence, for appellant.

D. Bryant King, III, Kimberly A. Wisniew-ski, Asst. Pros. Attys., Platte County, Platte City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SMART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

*ORDER*

Defendant appeals his jury conviction for the class A misdemeanor of driving while intoxicated pursuant to § 577.010 RSMo 1986, the sentence of one year imprisonment and a $500 fine.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
Divio Holdings, Corp.: Exhibit 10.2 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






PROMISSORY NOTE 

	Principal Amount: $10,000 USD 	Belize City, Belize 
	 	April 9, 2014 


VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, DIVIO HOLDINGS, CORP.
(borrower), promises to pay to the order of PAREALL INTERNATIONAL LTD. (lender),
at 60 Market Square, Belize City, PO Box 364, Belize, ON DEMAND, the sum of TEN
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000), with interest calculated monthly at a rate of 6% per
annum, payable on maturity.

Presentment for payment, demand, protest and notice of
dishonour and protest hereof are hereby waived. 

	 	DIVIO HOLDINGS, CORP. 
	 	 
	 	Per: 
	 	 
	 	/s/
      James Grant 
	 	James Grant, Director
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 1 of 23 Pg ID 1084
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 2 of 23 Pg ID 1085
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 3 of 23 Pg ID 1086
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 4 of 23 Pg ID 1087
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 5 of 23 Pg ID 1088
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 6 of 23 Pg ID 1089
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 7 of 23 Pg ID 1090
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 8 of 23 Pg ID 1091
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 9 of 23 Pg ID 1092
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 10 of 23 Pg ID 1093
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 11 of 23 Pg ID 1094
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 12 of 23 Pg ID 1095
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 13 of 23 Pg ID 1096
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 14 of 23 Pg ID 1097
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 15 of 23 Pg ID 1098
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 16 of 23 Pg ID 1099
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 17 of 23 Pg ID 1100
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 18 of 23 Pg ID 1101
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 19 of 23 Pg ID 1102
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 20 of 23 Pg ID 1103
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 21 of 23 Pg ID 1104
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 22 of 23 Pg ID 1105
2:09-cv-11912-VAR-MJH Doc # 56 Filed 06/08/10 Pg 23 of 23 Pg ID 1106
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRADLEY LASHAWN FOWLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS NELSON PUBLISHING, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________ /

Case Number: 09-10903

JUDGE PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff filed a complaint on March 11, 2009, against Defendant Thomas Nelson Publishing,

Inc. Plaintiff alleges that Thomas Nelson Publishing, Inc. violated the Michigan civil rights statute,

the Elliot-Larsen Act, Mich. Comp. Laws 37.2701, et seq, and the First Amendment of the United

States Constitution by publishing two versions of the Bible; Plaintiff is offended by the fact that one

Bible contains a passage that states that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God, yet the

same passage in the second Bible does not include homosexuals in the list of person who will not

inherit the kingdom of God. Plaintiff also filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis.

“[A] district court may, at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations

of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no

longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). The Court finds that

Plaintiff’s complaint is, on its face, totally implausible, frivolous and devoid of merit. 

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), and GRANTS

2:09-cv-10903-PDB-MKM Doc # 3 Filed 04/08/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 9
2

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.

SO ORDERED.

S/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 8, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

April 8, 2009.

S/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-10903-PDB-MKM Doc # 3 Filed 04/08/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CIVIL NO.09-12761

HON. PATRICK J. DUGGAN

FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., ET.AL,

Plaintiff(s),

-vWESTPORT INSURANCE CORP., ET.AL

Defendant(s).

 /

ORDER SETTING ASIDE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

At a session of said Court, held in the 

 United States Courthouse, in the City of

 Detroit, State of Michigan, on May 17, 2010.

 

 PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Plaintiffs having filed a response to the Order to Show Cause indicating 

defendants have beenserved; therefore

IT IS ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause as to why this case should

not be dismissed for failure to serve defendants be and the same is hereby SET ASIDE.

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: May 17, 2010

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

on May 17, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager