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

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I, Benjamin Shaw, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Covetrus, 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 necessaryto 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 allmaterial 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(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (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 designedunder 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 beingprepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin 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 occurredduring 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 controlover financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation 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 financialreporting 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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 
Date: March 29, 2019 
/s/ Benjamin Shaw
 Name: Benjamin Shaw Title: 
President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director

(Principal Executive Officer)
 **
#### Philip PERRIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Mrs. Alice Messmer SARDINGA, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 16709.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 2, 1937.

Brian *&*Brian, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Norman R. Tilden, of New Orleans, for appellee.

JANVIER, Judge.

For the reasons given in Jeffrey Brown v. Mrs. Alice Messmer Sardinga, 176 So. 662, this day decided, the judgment appealed from is affirmed at the cost of appellant.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
 AmerUs Life Holdings, Inc.
 Exhibit 11 - Statement Re: Computation of Earnings Per Share


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                    Three Months Ended                         Six Months Ended
                                      June 30, 1999                             June 30, 1999
                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Net            Number of        Per Share                   Number of     Per Share
                        Income           Shares            Amount    Net Income        Shares       Amount
                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         (in thousands, except per share amounts)  (in thousands, except per share amounts)
<S>                        <C>            <C>              <C>        <C>              <C>           <C>
 Basic EPS
     Net Income            $ 16,591       30,433           $ 0.55     $ 33,548         30,432        $ 1.10

 Effect of dilutive
   securities                    --           90            (0.01)          --             63            --
     Options
                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Diluted EPS               $ 16,591       30,523           $ 0.54     $ 33,548         30,495        $ 1.10
                        ====================================================================================
</TABLE>


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                    Three Months Ended                         Six Months Ended
                                      June 30, 1998                             June 30, 1998
                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Net            Number of       Per Share                   Number of     Per Share
                        Income           Shares          Amount     Net Income        Shares       Amount
                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         (in thousands, except per share amounts)  (in thousands, except per share amounts)
<S>                        <C>            <C>              <C>        <C>              <C>           <C>
 Basic EPS
     Net Income            $ 20,864       34,733           $ 0.60     $ 42,621         34,734        $ 1.23

 Effect of dilutive
   securities
     Options                     --          258               --           --            290         (0.01)
     Warrants                    --           31               --           --             62         (0.01)

                        ====================================================================================
 Diluted EPS               $ 20,864       35,022           $ 0.60     $ 42,621         35,086        $ 1.21
                        ====================================================================================
</TABLE>



                                       50
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

MICHAEL YABLONSKI,

Respondent

v.

KEEVICAN WEISS BAUERLE & HIRSCH

LLC,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 5 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of June, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Wayne L. Geddes

v. Civil No. 06-cv-139-JD

City of Nashua, et al.

O R D E R

While represented by counsel, Wayne L. Geddes filed a civil

rights action against the City of Nashua, the chief of police,

and several police officers, alleging that he was arrested

without probable cause and that the officers used excessive force

in the course of the arrest. He also alleged related state law

claims. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary

judgment as to Geddes's federal and state claims that he was

arrested without probable cause.

The trial was scheduled for the period beginning on March

18, 2008, and the final pretrial conference was scheduled for

March 4, 2008. On January 29, 2008, Geddes's counsel moved to

withdraw, stating: "Due to irreconcilable differences regarding

the conduct of the case, the undersigned is no longer able to

represent Mr. Geddes consistent with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and the New Hampshire Rules of Professional

Conduct." Doc. no. 19. Geddes's counsel represented that he had

advised Geddes that his options were to proceed pro se, to retain

Case 1:06-cv-00139-JD Document 27 Filed 03/03/08 Page 1 of 3
2

new counsel, or to withdraw his complaint. Id. The motion to

withdraw was granted the same day, setting a deadline of February

19, 2008, for Geddes to file an appearance pro se or have an

appearance filed on his behalf by counsel.

On February 20, 2008, Geddes filed a motion to extend the

time for him to retain new counsel. On February 21, the court

granted him an extension of time until February 28 to file an

appearance pro se or have an appearance filed on his behalf by

counsel. The court also ordered Geddes to file his pretrial

materials by February 28 or file for a continuance. The court

notified Geddes that if he failed to comply with the February 28

deadline, his case would be dismissed with prejudice.

Geddes has not filed an appearance pro se or had an

appearance filed on his behalf. He has not contacted the court

or asked for a further extension of time or for a continuance. 

Therefore, Geddes failed to comply with the deadline set in the

order of February 21, and the sanction of dismissing his case, of

which he was notified on February 21, is now appropriate.

Case 1:06-cv-00139-JD Document 27 Filed 03/03/08 Page 2 of 3
3

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, all of the claims brought in this

case are dismissed with prejudice.

The clerk of court shall enter judgment accordingly and

close the case.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

March 3, 2008

cc: Brian J.S. Cullen, Esquire

Donald E. Gardner, Esquire

Wayne L. Geddes, Sr., pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00139-JD Document 27 Filed 03/03/08 Page 3 of 3
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-63,979] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on September 4, 2008, in response to a petition filed by workers at Emerson Power Transmission, a subsidiary of Emerson Electric, Aurora, Illinois. 

This petitioner group of workers is covered by an active certification, (TA-W-62,689) which expires on February 27, 2010. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed in Washington, DC this 5th day of September 2008. 

 Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-21318 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Acknowledgment of Assignment



 Exhibit 10.20.1 
  
 [Letterhead of State Street Bank and Trust Company] 
  
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ASSIGNMENT 
  

November 2, 2004 
  
 Kent E. Weaver 
 Philadelphia International Advisors, LP 
 One Liberty Place, 12th Floor 
 1650 Market Street 
 Philadelphia, PA 19103 
  

	 	Re:	Investment Advisor Agreement, dated April 1, 2003 between State Street Bank and Trust Company and [Investment Advisor] relating to the American Bar Association Members/State Street
Collective Trust (“Trust”) 

  
 Ladies and Gentlemen:

  
 This is to notify you that effective December 1, 2004, State
Street Bank and Trust Company (“State Street”) will be replaced as trustee of the Trust by State Street Bank and Trust Company of New Hampshire, a New Hampshire Trust Company and wholly-owned subsidiary of State Street (“State Street
Trust Company”). 
  
 In connection with the appointment of
State Street Trust Company as trustee of the Trust, State Street hereby assigns its rights under the Investment Advisor Agreement to State Street Trust Company, and State Street Trust Company agrees to assume all of such rights and all obligations
under the Investment Advisor Agreement as of a effective date. 
  
 By countersigning this letter below and returning it to us, you acknowledge and agree to such assignment and that State Street Trust Company will be deemed your counterparty for all purposes under the Investment Advisory Agreement effective
as of December 1, 2004. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  

							
	State Street Bank and Trust Company	 	State Street Bank and Trust Company of New Hampshire
				
	 By:
	  	 /s/ Beth Halberstadt

	 	 By:
	  	 /s/ Gary Jenkins


	 Name:
	  	 Beth Halberstadt
	 	 Name:
	  	 Gary Jenkins

	 Title:
	  	 Vice President
	 	 Title:
	  	 Director

			
	Philadelphia International Advisors, LP	 	 	  	 
				
	 By:
	  	 /s/ Kent Weaver

	 	 	  	 
	 Name:
	  	 Kent Weaver
	 	 	  	 
	 Title:
	  	 Director
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v.

Paul Phaneuf

Criminal No. 06-cr-33-01-JD

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

11) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: February 9, 2007

cc: Paul Garrity, Esq.

Debra Walsh, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00033-JD Document 12 Filed 02/09/07 Page 1 of 1
ex_154889.htm


Exhibit 10.7


 


SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE TWO RIVER COMMUNITY BANK SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT  AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of August 8, 2019 by and between Two River Bancorp (“TRB”), a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey which serves as a bank holding company, with its principal office at 766 Shrewsbury Avenue, Tinton Falls, New Jersey 07724; Two River Community Bank (“TRCB” or “Employer”), a banking corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey which is a wholly owned subsidiary of TRB, with its principal office at 766 Shrewsbury Avenue, Tinton Falls, New Jersey 07724; and Alan B. Turner (“Executive”), whose business address is 766 Shrewsbury Avenue, Tinton Falls, New Jersey 07724.


 


WHEREAS, TRCB and Executive executed a Supplemental Executive Retirement Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated January 1, 2005, which agreement had an Effective Date of November 1, 2004; and


 


WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 8.1 of the Agreement TRCB has reserved to itself the right to amend the Agreement from time to time; and


 


WHEREAS, TRCB and the Executive executed the First Amendment to the Agreement during October, 2008; and


 


WHEREAS, TRCB and the Executive executed the Second Amendment to the Agreement on March 1, 2010; and


 


WHEREAS, TRCB and the Executive executed the Third Amendment to the Agreement on June 1, 2010; and


 


WHEREAS, TRCB and the Executive executed the Fourth Amendment to the Agreement on June 1, 2013; and


 


WHEREAS, TRCB and the Executive executed the Fifth Amendment to the Agreement on September 30, 2016; and


 


WHEREAS, TRCB wishes to amend the Agreement to revise the definition of Cause.


 


NOW THEREFORE, the Bank determines as follows:


 


Section 5.1 of the Agreement is amended and replaced as follows:


 


	
			5.1

				
			Termination for Cause. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the Participant shall forfeit any right to a benefit under this Agreement if, at any time prior to a Change in Control, the Bank terminates the Participant's service for Cause. Termination of the Participant's service for "Cause" shall mean any of the following acts or circumstances: gross negligence or gross neglect of duties to TRCB; conviction of a felony or of a gross misdemeanor involving moral turpitude in connection with the executive’s employment with TRCB; or fraud, disloyalty, dishonesty or willful violation of any law or significant TRCB policy committed in connection with the executive's employment and resulting in a material adverse effect on TRCB.

			



 


[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK]


 



 




 




 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bank and the Executive hereby execute this Amendment.


 


	
			EXECUTIVE: 


			 


			 


			/s/ Alan B. Turner                     


			Alan B. Turner                       

				
			TWO RIVER COMMUNITY BANK:


			 


			 


			By:/s/ William D. Moss              


			      William D. Moss, CEO
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1293 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1293

  To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to ensure the continued 
stability of the Federal deposit insurance system with respect to banks 
           and savings associations, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2001

Mr. Ney (for himself, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. LaTourette, 
 and Mr. Jones of North Carolina) introduced the following bill; which 
          was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to ensure the continued 
stability of the Federal deposit insurance system with respect to banks 
           and savings associations, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Deposit Insurance Stabilization 
Act''.

SEC. 2. MERGER OF THE DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUNDS.

    Subsection (c) of section 2704 of the Deposit Insurance Funds Act 
of 1996 (12 U.S.C. 1821 nt.) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made by this 
section shall take effect at the end of the 60-day period beginning on 
the date of the enactment of the Deposit Insurance Stabilization 
Act.''.

SEC. 3. ASSESSMENTS TO MAINTAIN DESIGNATED RESERVE RATIO.

    (a) In General.--Section 5(d) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act 
(12 U.S.C. 1815(d)(1)) (as amended by section 2704(d)(14)(D) of the 
Deposit Insurance Funds Act of 1996 effective in accordance with the 
amendment made by section 2 of this Act) is amended by adding at the 
end the following new paragraph:
            ``(4) Net increase in new deposits.--In the case of any 
        insured depository institution that experiences a net increase 
        in new insured deposits in excess of such percentage as the 
        Corporation may determine to be appropriate during the most 
        recent semiannual assessment period, the Board of Directors may 
        impose a fee on the depository institution in the manner 
        provided under paragraph (1) with respect to the amount of such 
        net increase in new insured deposits.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect at the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date of 
the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. REPEAL OF MINIMUM ASSESSMENTS TO RECAPITALIZE THE DEPOSIT 
              INSURANCE FUND.

    Section 7(b)(2) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
1817(b)(2)) is amended by striking subparagraph (E).
                                 <all>
```
## NUMBER 13

- 2 2

- 00 236

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE KIRBY OFFSHORE MARINE OPERATING

, LLC

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

.



## ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

On May 24, 2022, relator Kirby Offshore Marine Operating

, LLC filed a petition for

writ of mandamus asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering a new

trial without stating specific reasons for the new trial , and relator lacks an adequate

remedy by appeal to address this abuse of discretion

.

The Court requests that the real part y in interest, Southern Recycling, LLC, or any

others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought

, file a response to2 the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of

this order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

24th day of May , 202 2

.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Paul Blackmer

v. Civil No. 05-cv-340-PB

Warden, Northern New Hampshire

Correctional Facility

O R D E R

The following motions filed by petitioner Paul Blackmer are

hereby granted in part, but only to the extent he seeks to amend

his petition for a writ of habeas corpus:

1. Motion to Amend Objection to Report and Recommendation

(document no. 11);

2. Second Motion to Amend Rough Final Draft of Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(document no. 12);

3. Motion to Amend Motion to Toll 28 U.S.C. § 2244

Limitations (document no. 13);

4. Motion for Expansion of Time to Submit Memorandum in

Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (document no. 14);

Case 1:05-cv-00340-PB Document 34 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 2
2

5. Motion to Amend Motion to Toll 28 U.S.C. § 2244

Limitations (document no. 15);

6. Motion for Further Expansion of Time to Submit

Memorandum in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (document no. 16);

7. Motion to Again Amend Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (document no 17); and

8. Motion to Amend Motion to Again Amend Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus (document no. 18).

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: July 31, 2006

cc: Paul Blackmer, Pro Se 

Case 1:05-cv-00340-PB Document 34 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 2