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






EXHIBIT 10.31
DESCRIPTION OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
Effective April 1, 2019, non-employee directors of the Company receive $15,000 per fiscal quarter in compensation for service as director, plus $2,000 per board and committee meeting attended, except the Chairs of the Audit Committee and the Compensation, Nominating and Governance Committee, who each receive $18,750 per fiscal quarter and $2,000 per board and committee meeting attended, and except for the Independent Lead Director, who receives $23,750 per fiscal quarter and $2,000 per board and committee meeting attended. Non-employee directors may elect to defer the receipt of meeting and/or director fees in accordance with the terms of the Company’s Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan. In addition, non-employee directors may from time to time be granted restricted stock units pursuant to the provisions of the Genuine Parts Company 2015 Long Term Incentive Plan. The compensation of directors may be changed from time to time by the Board of Directors without stockholder approval.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14(b) AND
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (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:  June 9, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Myles S. OdaniellMyles S. OdaniellPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 31.1



Certification Pursuant to Section 302
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Shawn O’Brien, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Cipher
Pharmaceuticals, 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 issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The issuer’s other certifying officer(s) 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 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
issuer, 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 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 issuer’s
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected,
or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer’s auditors and
the audit committee of the 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 control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.



Date: March 31, 2015





|/s/ Shawn Patrick O’Brien                    | 
|-------------------------------------------- | 
|Name: Shawn Patrick O’Brien                  | 
|Title: President and Chief Executive Officer | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer        |
EXHIBIT 35.3
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC
              RAAC SERIES 2006-SP2 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:       /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
          Name: Anthony N. Renzi
          Title: Managing Director
April 30 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MOODY & MOLINA , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00203

- CV V.
LONG BA NGUYEN, INDI VIDUALLY AND LAN N. HUYNH,

INDIVIDUALLY , Appellee s

________________________________ Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on February 18, 2013. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we orde r the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal. We further order that mandate be issued immediately. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### Yolanda GONZALEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security DefendantAppellee.

No. 01-56809. D.C. CV-00-00535-VAP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 6, 2002.1

Decided Nov. 13, 2002.

Before PREGERSON, NOONAN, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Plaintiff-Appellant Yolanda Gonzalez appeals the district court’s summary judgment affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance under Title II of the Social Security Act. Specifically, she argues (1) the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred by considering Gonzalez’s four-month employment in 1995 to constitute past relevant work; (2) the ALJ erred *859in concluding that Gonzalez did not have an impairment listed in Social Security regulations; (3) the ALJ improperly discounted her credibility; (4) Plaintiff-Appellant’s age should have been considered a factor in determining disability; and (5) her application for disability insurance of June 7, 1991 should be reopened. We affirm.

We need not elaborate on the facts of this case because they are known to the parties.

Plaintiff-Appellant cites no authority in her brief supporting the conclusion that the part-time nature of the job precludes it from being considered past relevant work, and we find no such authority ourselves.

The ALJ properly concluded that Gonzalez’s impairments either singly, or in combination, did not meet or equal a listed impairment. *See*20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. There is no evidence in the record to support the conclusion that Plaintiff-Appellant met or equaled a listed impairment. To the extent a conflict in medical testimony existed, the ALJ need not have called on the services of a medical expert to resolve such a conflict. *Reddick v. Chafer,*157 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir.1998).

The ALJ based his negative credibility determination on proper grounds. *See Palmer v. University Medical Group,*994 F.Supp. 1221, 1233 (D.Or.1998).

Because the ALJ properly determined that Plaintiff-Appellant has the residual functional capacity to do her past relevant work, her age was properly not considered. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b); *see also Bowen v. Yuckert,*482 U.S. 137, 140-42, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 96 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987).

Plaintiff-Appellant’s argument that her application of June 7, 1991 should be reopened is without merit.

AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited in or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7319

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

WILLIE JEROME MACKINS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg, 

District Judge. (3:04-cv-00261-LHT; 3:97-cr-22-4) 

Submitted: September 24, 2009 Decided: October 14, 2009 

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Willie Jerome Mackins, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Willie Jerome Mackins seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mackins has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------

                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWMBS, INC.
                     CHL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH TRUST 2006-11
               MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-11


        The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                             Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549





________________








FORM 8-K








CURRENT REPORT,


PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF


THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934








DATE OF REPORT (Date of earliest event reported):  May 5, 2011








CHYRON CORPORATION


(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)








New York
01-09014
11-2117385(State or Other Jurisdiction

of Incorporation)
(Commission File Number)
(I.R.S. Employer

Identification No.)








5 Hub DriveMelville, New York
11747(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
(Zip Code)








Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (631) 845-2000





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:





[ ] Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)


[ ] Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)


[ ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))


[ ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))














Item 2.02   Results of Operations and Financial Condition





On May 5, 2011, Chyron Corporation issued a press release announcing its results of operations for the first quarter ended March 31, 2011. A copy of the press release, including its Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited) for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and 2010, and Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Unaudited) at March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010, is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1.





Item 9.01   Financial Statements and Exhibits.





(c) Exhibits





99.1           Press Release of Chyron Corporation dated May 5, 2011.











SIGNATURES








Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report on Form 8-K to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.





CHYRON CORPORATION





By:
/s/ Jerry KieliszakName:
Jerry KieliszakTitle:
Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer








Exhibit No.
Description99.1
Press Release, dated May 5, 2011.











Date: May 5, 2011
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6126 

To provide that, due to the disruptions caused by COVID–19, applications 

for impact aid funding for fiscal year 2023 may use certain data submitted in the fiscal year 2022 application. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 2, 2021 

Mr. COURTNEY (for himself and Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 

Labor 

A BILL 

To provide that, due to the disruptions caused by COVID– 

19, applications for impact aid funding for fiscal year 

2023 may use certain data submitted in the fiscal year 

2022 application. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supplemental Impact 

5 Aid Flexibility Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. IMPACT AID PROGRAM. 

7 Due to the public health emergency directly relating 

8 to COVID–19 and notwithstanding sections 7002(j) and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6126 IH

1 7003(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

2 of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7702(j), 7703(c)), a local educational 

3 agency desiring to receive a payment under section 7002 

4 or 7003 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7702, 7703) for fiscal 

5 year 2023 that also submitted an application for such pay6 ment for fiscal year 2022 shall, in the application sub7 mitted under section 7005 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7705) 

8 for fiscal year 2023— 

9 (1) with respect to a requested payment under 

10 section 7002 of such Act— 

11 (A) use the data described in section 

12 7002(j) of such Act relating to calculating such 

13 payment that was submitted by the local edu14 cational agency in the application for fiscal year 

15 2022; or 

16 (B) use the data relating to calculating 

17 such payment for the fiscal year required under 

18 section 7002(j) of such Act; and 

19 (2) with respect to a requested payment under 

20 section 7003 of such Act— 

21 (A) use the student count data relating to 

22 calculating such payment that was submitted by 

23 the local educational agency in the application 

24 for fiscal year 2022, provided that payments for 

25 fiscal year 2023 shall be calculated by the SecVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:22 Dec 10, 2021 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6126.IH H6126

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6126 IH

1 retary using the expenditures and rates de2 scribed in clauses (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of sec3 tion 7003(b)(1)(C) of such Act that would oth4 erwise apply for fiscal year 2023; or 

5 (B) use the student count data relating to 

6 calculating such payment for the fiscal year re7 quired under section 7003(c) of such Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
### Kathryne Vause Appellant/s Liberty Insurance Corporation

and Justin A. s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 28, 2014

N o. 04-13-00614-CV

Kathryne VAUSE

, Appellant

v.

LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION and Justin A. Smith,

Appellees

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 07-2231-CV

William Old, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due to be filed on December 12, 2013. This court granted Appellant’s first

and second motions for extension of time to file the brief until January 24, 2014. On January 27, 2014,

Appellant filed an unopposed third motion for extension of time to file the brief until February 24, 2014,

for a total extension of seventy-four days.

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief must be filed with this court not later than

February 24, 2014. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d).

NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE

GRANTED. If Appellant fails to file the brief as ordered, the court may dismiss this appeal for want of

prosecution. See id. R. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

___________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on

this 28th day of January, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### WILSON v. GRANT.

No. 7183.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 30, 1948.

George Wear, of Columbia, for appellant.

Leslie L. LaCroix, of Columbia, for ap-pellee.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

Trial of this case in the District Court resulted in judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant, litigating in forma pauperis, appealed devolutively to this court.. Thereafter, through appropriate proceedings in the lower court, its order authorizing defendant to litigate in this manner was set aside and annulled. A copy of the court’s order to this effect has been filed in this court. Defendant made no effort to thereafter effectuate his appeal, but, on the contrary, there is now documentary evidence in the record that makes it clear he has abandoned the appeal. Therefore, for said reasons, the appeal taken herein by defendant is hereby dismissed as having been abandoned, and he is cast for all costs.
EXHIBIT 35.2

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC

                RALI SERIES 2006-QS4 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer")  pursuant to the applicable  servicing  agreement,  does hereby
certify that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing agreement in all material
respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:    /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
       Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
       Title: Executive Vice President
<PAGE> 


                                                                  Exhibit 12 (b)
                              J. C. Penney Company, Inc.
                            and Consolidated Subsidiaries

              Computation of Ratios of Available Income to Fixed Charges





                                              53 weeks               52 weeks
                                               ended                  ended
                                              Oct. 31,               Oct. 25,
     ($ Millions)                               1998                   1997   
                                             __________            __________

     Income from continuing operations       $      995             $     711
        (before income taxes and
        capitalized interest)

     Fixed charges

     Interest (including capitalized
     interest) on:

        Operating leases                            180                   110
        Short term debt                             106                   122
        Long term debt                              555                   473
        Capital leases                                6                     7
        Credit facility                              -                     19
        Other, net                                   -                    (14)
                                              _________             _________
     Total fixed charges                            847                   717   

                                                                                
                                              _________             _________
     Total available income                   $   1,842             $   1,428
                                              =========             =========
     Ratio of available income to
        fixed charges                               2.2                   2.0
                                              =========             =========



     The interest cost of the LESOP notes guaranteed by the Company is not
     included in fixed charges above.

     The Company believes that, due to the seasonal nature of its business,
     ratios for a period of time other than a 52 or 53 week
     period are inappropriate.