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

CERTIFICATION

I, Douglas W. Hyde, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of OshKosh B'Gosh, Inc.;

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 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; 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 officer 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 the 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 control 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:  October 20, 2004 | By: | /S/ DOUGLAS W. HYDE    
|----------------------- | --- | -----------------------
|                        |     |                        
|                        |     | Douglas W. Hyde        
|                        |     | Chief Executive Officer
|                        |     |
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 793

To eliminate the administrative authority to prohibit the possession or transfer

of particular assault weapons.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 2, 1995

Mr. BAKER of Louisiana (for himself, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. EMERSON,

Mr. TANNER, Mr. STUMP, Mr. KOLBE, Mr. RIGGS, Mr. MCKEON, Mr.

BRYANT of Tennessee, Mr. UPTON, Mr. NEY, Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mr.

LATOURETTE, and Mr. HANCOCK) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To eliminate the administrative authority to prohibit the

possession or transfer of particular assault weapons.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY

4 TO PROHIBIT THE POSSESSION OR TRANS5 FER OF PARTICULAR ASSAULT WEAPONS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 921(a)(30) of title 18,

7 United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

8 ‘‘(30) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’

9 means—
2

•HR 793 IH

1 ‘‘(A) any firearm known as—

2 ‘‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Tech3 nologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

4 ‘‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Indus5 tries UZI and Galil;

6 ‘‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC–70);

7 ‘‘(iv) Colt AR–15;

8 ‘‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/

9 LAR, and FNC;

10 ‘‘(vi) SWD M–10, M–11, M–11/9, and M–

11 12;

12 ‘‘(vii) Steyr AUG; or

13 ‘‘(viii) INTRATEC TEC–9, TEC–DC9

14 and TEC–22; and

15 ‘‘(B) any revolving cylinder shotgun, such as

16 (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.’’.

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

18 subsection (a) shall take effect as if the amendment were

19 included in subtitle A of title XI of the Violent Crime Con20 trol and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 at the time such

21 subtitle became law.

Æ
1

WESLEY L. HATMON, )

)

Movant-Appellant, )

)

v. ) No. SD36289

)

STATE OF MISSOURI, ) Filed: July 29, 2020

)

Respondent-Respondent. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY

Honorable Lisa Carter Henderson, Associate Circuit Judge 

REVERSED & REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

Wesley L. Hatmon (“Movant”), following an evidentiary hearing on an amended 

motion, was denied post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035.1 Unfortunately, we must 

reverse and remand, not on the merits, but for an independent evidentiary inquiry on 

whether Movant was abandoned by post-conviction counsel. Both Movant and the State 

agree that the amended motion was untimely. The notice of filing of guilty plea and 

sentencing transcript, filed by post-conviction counsel, erroneously stated the due date for 

 1 All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2020), unless otherwise specified. 
2

the amended motion.2 The issue of the timeliness of the amended motion was neither 

mentioned in the Rule 24.035 evidentiary hearing, nor addressed in the findings of facts 

and conclusions of law. 

We must address the timeliness of the amended motion. Moore v. State, 458 

S.W.3d 822, 826-27 (Mo. banc 2015). “The filing deadlines for post[-]conviction relief 

are mandatory, and cannot be waived.” Watson v. State, 536 S.W.3d 716, 717 (Mo. banc 

2018) (internal quotations and citation omitted). “The untimely filing of an amended 

motion by post[-]conviction counsel creates a presumption of abandonment.” Id. at 719. 

When the presumption of abandonment arises, “the motion court is obligated to conduct 

an independent inquiry to determine whether the movant was actually abandoned.” 

Milner v. State, 551 S.W.3d 476, 479-80 (Mo. banc 2018).

We, therefore, have no choice but to reverse the judgment and remand the case to 

the motion court with instructions to make an independent inquiry on the abandonment 

issue.

Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer, P.J. – Opinion Author

Daniel E. Scott, J. – Concurs

William W. Francis, Jr., J. – Concurs

 2 Separate counsel relied upon that date in the filing of the amended motion.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT (15)(a)





October 27, 2000


CMS Energy Corporation:

We are aware that CMS Energy Corporation has incorporated by reference in its
Registration Statements No. 33-55805, No. 33-60007, No. 33-61595, No. 333-27849,
No. 333-32229, No. 333-37241, No. 333-45556, No. 333-47464, No. 333-68937, No.
333-75805, and No. 333-76347 its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2000, which includes our report dated October 27, 2000 covering the unaudited
interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant to Regulation C of the
Securities Act of 1933, that report is not considered a part of the registration
statement prepared or certified by our firm or a report prepared or certified by
our firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.



Very truly yours,


/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 30, 2009 

Order 

 

June 30, 2009 

137400(69) 

137407(70) 

INSURANCE INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, HASTINGS 

MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FARM BUREAU 

GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FRANKENMUTH 

CASUALTY INSURANCE, WALTER STAFFORD, JR., 

and MICHAEL FLOHR, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

and 

MICHIGAN INSURANCE COALITION and CITIZENS 

INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, 

 Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

 SC: 137400 

v COA: 262385 

 Barry CC: 05-000156-CZ 

COMMISSIONER, FINANCIAL & INSURANCE SERVICES, 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________ 

INSURANCE INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, HASTINGS 

MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FARM BUREAU 

GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FRANKENMUTH 

CASUALTY INSURANCE, WALTER STAFFORD, JR., 

and MICHAEL FLOHR, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

and 

MICHIGAN INSURANCE COALITION and CITIZENS 

INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, 

 Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 SC: 137407 

v COA: 262385 

 Barry CC: 05-000156-CZ 

COMMISSIONER, FINANCIAL & INSURANCE SERVICES, 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulated joint motion for extension of time for the 

filing of briefs is considered and it is GRANTED.
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                        CSL LIGHTING MANUFACTURING, INC.

                              [Filed March 6, 1997]

      The undersigned, being the Chief Operating Officer and Assistant Secretary
of CSL Lighting Manufacturing, Inc.. (the "Corporation") hereby certify that:

      FIRST: The name of the Corporation is CSL LIGHTING MANUFACTURING, INC.

      SECOND: The Certificate of Incorporation was filed with the Secretary of
State on November 16, 1993.

      THIRD: The Certificate of Incorporation is hereby amended to increase the
Corporation's authorized capitalization.

      FOURTH: To accomplish the foregoing amendment, Article FOURTH is hereby
amended and restated as follows:

            "FOURTH: The total number of shares of stock which the corporation
shall have authority to issue is thirty-one million (31,000,000) shares of which
thirty million (30,000,000) shares shall be Common Stock with a par value of
$.01 per share and one million (1,000,000) shares shall be Preferred Stock with
a par value of $.01 per share.

            Additional designations of powers, the rights and preferences and
the qualifications, limitations or restrictions with respect to each class of
stock of the corporation shall be as determined by the Board of Directors from
time to time."


<PAGE>

      FIFTH: The foregoing amendment was adopted by the directors and
stockholders of the Corporation at duly called meetings of the board and
stockholders, respectively, in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of
the General Corporation Law.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate is subscribed as of this 25th day of
February, 1997 by the undersigned who affirm under penalties of perjury that the
statements contained herein are true and correct.



                              ________________________________________
                              Mark Allen, Chief Operating Officer

                              ________________________________________
                              Kenneth S. Rose, Assistant Secretary


                                       2
Exhibit 32.1

                  Certification OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 amended Annual Report of Arotech Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2003 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Robert S. Ehrlich,
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, hereby certify that the Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                        By: /s/ Robert S. Ehrlich
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Robert S. Ehrlich, Chairman,
                                           President and CEO
                                           (Chief Executive Officer)

Date:  November 29, 2004
#### ROSENTHAL v. PARSONS.*

No. 14910.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Dec. 10, 1934.

J. L. Warren Woodville, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Louis H. Yarrut, of New Orleans, for appel-lee.

WESTEREIELD, Judge.

In this matter, submitted to this court without brief or oral argument on behalf of either party and without appearance of counsel on behalf of the appellant, the plaintiff and appellee, Jacques Rosenthal, obtained a judgment below for $718.50 with interest and attorney’s fees as the amount due on a certain promissory note, given as the balance of the purchase price of a “leaf of Mayence, Fust *&*Schoeffer, 1458 Canon Missae.” The judgment recognized a vendor’s lien and privilege on the “Mayence, Fust & Schoeffer, 1458 Canon Missae,”, in the possession of the defendant, and ordered it sold and the proceeds paid over to petitioner.

The defendant filed an answer in which it is averred that the plaintiff received the note under an agreement which was violated. On the trial of the case, however, no effort was made to prove the agreement and no testimony or other evidence offered on behalf of defendant.

The case seems to us to be one in which no serious defense was made, and the conclusion is inescapable that the appeal to this court was frivolous. In view of the motion of counsel for appellee for 10 per cent, damages for frivolous appeal, the judgment will be amended to include the damages asked for.

For the reasons assigned it is ordered that the judgment appealed from be and it is amended by allowing 10 per cent, additional as damages for frivolous appeal, and as thus amended it *is*affirmed.

Amended and affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,355,000
<SECURITIES>                                   135,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,050,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (353,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 20,091,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            38,645,000
<PP&E>                                      90,167,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              31,297,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             108,012,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,491,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,860,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  61,020,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               108,012,000
<SALES>                                     65,362,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            65,362,000
<CGS>                                       49,228,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               62,236,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (14,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             639,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,501,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   897,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,604,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,604,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.17




SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS
The following is a description of the standard arrangements pursuant to which directors of SM Energy are compensated for services provided as a director, including additional amounts payable for committee participation:
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
Employee directors do not receive additional compensation for serving on the Board of Directors or any committee.
For service in 2019 - 2020 as it relates to the period from May 2019 through May 2020, target compensation for each member of the Board of Directors has been set at $126,000 annually, plus a retainer paid in lieu of committee and attendance fees. As described more fully below, the actual value of compensation may be higher or lower depending on the results of the restricted stock component of director compensation. Primary director compensation is in the form of stock grants and is fully described below. The retainer component of director compensation for non-employee directors consists of an annual retainer of $90,000 for committee and board meeting fees paid in SM Energy common stock or cash as selected by the director; provided that in the event any director attends in excess of 30 Board and Committee meetings in the aggregate during the period from May 2019 through May 2020, such director shall receive $1,500 per meeting for each meeting in excess of 30. In addition, each non-employee director is reimbursed for expenses incurred in attending Board and Committee meetings and director education programs.
The committee chairs receive the cash payments identified in the list below in recognition of the additional workload of their respective committee assignments. These amounts are paid at the beginning of the annual service period.
		
	•
	Audit Committee - $20,000


		
	•
	Compensation Committee - $15,000


		
	•
	Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee - $10,000


The stock compensation for non-employee directors is as follows:
Annual compensation payable upon election to the Board by the stockholders, valued at $126,000. This resulted in a grant of restricted stock to each non-employee director of 10,345 shares of SM Energy common stock issued on May 30, 2019, under SM Energy's Equity Incentive Compensation Plan. These shares vested on December 31, 2019. 
A retainer for the Non-Executive Chairman of the Board valued at $80,000. This resulted in a grant of 6,569 shares of SM Energy common stock issued on May 30, 2019, under SM Energy's Equity Incentive Compensation Plan. These shares vested on December 31, 2019.
William Sullivan elected to receive SM Energy common stock for his retainer, which resulted in a grant of 7,390 shares of SM Energy common stock issued on May 30, 2019, under SM Energy's Equity Incentive Compensation Plan. These shares vested on December 31, 2019.  Carla Bailo, Larry Bickle, Stephen Brand, Loren Leiker, Ramiro Peru, Julio Quintana and Rose Robeson each elected to receive a $90,000 cash payment for their retainer.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
        THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
        INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE AND
        NINE MONTH PERIODS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND THE INTERIM CONDENSED
        CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
        ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000075679
<NAME>                        GCI, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         11,420
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  43,812
<ALLOWANCES>                                   3,085
<INVENTORY>                                    4,985
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               72,815
<PP&E>                                         493,566
<DEPRECIATION>                                 141,246
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 671,438
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          61,975
<BONDS>                                        376,844
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       235,180
<OTHER-SE>                                     (29,883)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   671,438
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               215,609
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  89,243
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               112,958
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               3,371
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             29,172
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (18,581)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (7,205)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11,376)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,376)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (113,760)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (113,760)



</TABLE>
176 La. 1054

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joe RICHARDSON.

No. 32285.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 27, 1933.

George T. McSween, of Shreveport, for appellant.

G. L. Porterie, Atty. Gen. (James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., James U. Galloway, Dist. Atty., of Shreveport, and James O’Niell, Asst, to Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the State.

ODOM, Justice.

The defendant was indicted for having in possession intoxicating liquors for sale in violation of Act No. 39 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.), known as the Hood Act. He moved to quash the indictment on the ground that the same charged the violation of no law of the state of Louisiana nor any crime or offense.

The basis of this plea is that Act No. 39 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.) was repealed by a vote of the electors of the state at an election held in November, 1932, under the provisions of Act No. 238 of 1932. The motion to quash the indictment was overruled by the trial court and the accused was tried, convicted, and sentenced to pay a fine of $301. From this conviction and sentence he appealed.

In the case of State v. Herbert Watkins (La. Sup.) 147 So. 8, decided February 27, 1933, but not yet reported in State Report, it was held that the election held in November, 1932, under the provisions of the Act No. 238 of 1932, was ineffective, and that Act No. 39 of 1921 (Ex. Sess.), known as the Hood Act, was not repealed by the act of 1932 and the election held thereunder. The issues involved in that case were the same as those here involved, and for the reasons therein stated the conviction and sentence in the present case are sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

ST. PAUL, J., dissents. Cf. Police Jury, etc., v. McDonogh, 8 La. Ann. 341, 358.