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

Exhibit 4.9


PARTIES:

A. Payment Solutions Group f/s/o
Peter Van Brunt(Consultant)


B. ProCoreGroup Inc.
2250 Warrensville Center Road
University Hts. Ohio 44118(Company)


SUBJECT MATTER:

Consulting Services. Advise and counseling with respect to business development,
company structuring, development of a business plan, identifying merger or
acquisition companies, structuring company management team, developing company
investor relations team, implementing day to day company business.

TERMS:

1.00
Consultant agrees to provide consulting services as indicated in the
above-referenced subject matter, and other services as requested by Company's
Management.

2.00
Consultant agrees to direct business opportunities to company whenever possible.

3.00
Company agrees to compensate Consultant with a sum of money equal to Five
hundred Thousand Shares of free trading company stock plus other compensation as
companies management determines.

4.00
Both Company and Consultant agree to re-negotiate this agreement as Company
achieves more success.


Agreed and accepted:




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

an authorized representative for ProCoreGroup INC.


Agreed and accepted:




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

an authorized representative of Payment Solutions Group INC.


<PAGE>
Exhibit 31.1





CERTIFICATION





I, Robert F. Doman, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Echo Therapeutics, Inc.; and





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.





/s/ Robert F. Doman


Robert F. Doman


Interim Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)





May 1, 2014
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Alston , Hu ff and Senior Judge Coleman

Argued at Salem , Virginia

TRAVIS WADE SPENCE

MEMORANDUM OPINION ∗ BY

v. Record No. 1492

- 10

- 3 JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III

APRIL 3, 2012

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BUCHANAN COUNTY

Patrick R. Johnson , Judge

Helen E. Phillips ( Charles H. Slemp , III ; McGlothlin & Phillips,

PLLC; Slemp Law Office, PLLC, on brief), for appellant

.

Donald E. Jeffrey, III , Senior Assi stant Attorney General

(Kenne th T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Travis Wade Spence (appellant) appeals his convictions of first

- degree murder and

obstruction of justice. On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to

set aside the verdict because trial counsel did not render him effective assistance. However, c laims

raising ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable on direct appeal. 1 See Blevins v.

Commonwealth, 267 Va. 291, 296, 590 S.E.2d 365, 368 (2004). “ Claims of ineffective assistance

of counsel may no longer be raised on direct appeal. Code § 19.2

- 317 .1 , which had allowed direct

appeal of such claims under certain circumstances, was repealed in 1990. 1990 Va. Acts, c. 74.”

Browning v. Commonwealth , 1 9 Va. App. 295, 297 n. 2, 4 52 S.E.2d 360, 362 n.2 (1994).

∗ Pursuant to Code § 17.1

- 413, this opinion is not designated for pu blication.

1 C laim s of ineffective assistance of trial counsel may be raised for the first time in a state

habeas corpus proceeding without violating Virginia law that non

- jurisdictional issues that could

have been raised at trial and on direct appeal are not cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus. See Walker v. Mitchell , 224 Va. 568, 571, 299 S.E.2d 698 , 699 (1983).- 2

- Accordingly, we do not address the merits of appellant’s argument, and appellant’s convictions are

affirmed

.

Affirmed

.
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Defense Contract Audit Agency, DOD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the appointment of members to the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Performance Review Boards. The Performance Review Boards provide fair and impartial review of Senior Executive Service (SES) performance appraisals and make recommendations to the Director, DCAA, regarding final performance ratings and performance awards for DCAA SES members.

# DATES:

Effective upon publication of this notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandra L. Burrell, Chief, Human Resources Management Division, Defense Contract Audit Agency, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 2133, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6219, (703) 767-1039.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the following are the names and titles of DCAA career executives appointed to serve as members of the DCAA Performance Review Boards. Appointees will serve one-year terms, effective upon publication of this notice.

## Headquarters Performance Review Board

Mr. Kenneth Saccoccia, Assistant Director, Policy and Plans, DCAA; chairperson.

Ms. Karen Cash, Assistant Director, Operations; member.

Mr. Thomas Peters, Director, Field Detachment, DCAA; member.

## Regional Performance Review Board

Mr. Ronald Meldonian, Regional Director, Northeastern Region, DCAA; chairperson.

Mr. Paul Phillips, Regional Director, Eastern Region, DCAA; member.

Mr. Edward Nelson, Regional Director, Central Region, DCAA; member.

Dated: September 20, 2010.

Mitchell S. Bryman,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2010-23781 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
583 A.2d 327

#### JOANNE EGAN ASSOCIATES v. LESLIE ROGERS AND WILLIAM NORTON STAHL.

February 26, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K 
of LHS Group Inc. of our report dated February 12, 1999, included in the 1998 
Annual Report to Stockholders of LHS Group Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of LHS Group, Inc.
listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of LHS Group Inc.'s 
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In 
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly 
in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-28985 and Form S-8 No. 333-57269) of our report dated February
12, 1998 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of LHS Group Inc.
incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the preceding 
paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in this 
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998.


                                                    /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 29, 1999
583 A.2d 348

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. PHILLIP B. HARRISON.

March 26, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
417 A.2d 745

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. William Alexander HILL, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Oct. 25, 1979.

Filed Dec. 28, 1979.

*473Hillel Lewis, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Robert B. Lawler, Assistant District Attorney, Chief, Appeals Division, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, President Judge, and ROBERTS and LIPEZ, J.*

*

 Justice Samuel J. Roberts of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

On June 11, 1976, a court sitting without jury convicted appellant of murder of the third degree and possession of an instrument of crime. Appellant, represented by trial counsel, filed post-verdict motions challenging only sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdicts. After denying the motions, the trial court sentenced appellant to a term of imprisonment of 4 to 16 years for murder and a concurrent term of 2 to 4 years on the weapons charge. Appellant’s counsel did not file an appeal. On June 7, 1977, appellant, acting *pro se,*filed a petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act,** seeking permission to appeal *nunc pro tunc.*The PCHA court appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition alleging that trial counsel was ineffective because he had a conflict of interest based on his representation of the Commonwealth’s chief witness in another matter. The Commonwealth answered this amended petition, admitting that appellant had stated facts which, if true, would entitle him to relief and requesting that the court hold an evidentiary hearing. The PCHA court granted an appeal *nunc pro tunc*but did not hold a hearing. We remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine the effectiveness of trial counsel.

At appellant’s trial, the Commonwealth presented James Edward Sanders as an eyewitness. During direct examination, the trial court asked the prosecutor, “Is that your witness?” Trial counsel answered, “No. He’s a client of mine, Your Honor.” Direct examination then continued. *474Appellant argues that the trial court should have held a colloquy or hearing to determine whether trial counsel, despite the conflict of interest, should continue his representation. Appellant alleges that he was unaware of the conflict of interest until Sanders testified.

Faced with appellant’s allegations, the PCHA court should have held a hearing to determine whether trial counsel was effective. See *Commonwealth v. Sample,*270 Pa.Super. 47, 410 A.2d 889 (1979). Because the record is too meager to permit this court to make that determination, we remand for the PCHA court to hold a hearing. See *id.*

Case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

**

 Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. (1965) 1580, 19 P.S. § 1180-1 et seq. (Supp.1979), repealed, Act of April 28, 1978, P.L. 202, effective June 27, 1978.
Department of the United States Air Force LogoBiography
                  United States Air Force110405-F-JZ021-834.JPG
            MAJOR GENERAL JOSEPH D. ZINKMajor General Joseph D. Zink is military executive, Reserve Forces Policy Board. The board is a statutory body which serves as principal policy adviser to the secretary of defense on matters relating to the reserve components. It is located in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C.
General Zink was. born in 1922, in Newark, N.J. He graduated from Belleville High School, Belleville, N.J., in 1940 and entered Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. He entered the aviation cadet program in 1942. At the end of World War II he returned to Princeton University and in 1946 received his bachelor of arts degree in political science. He received his bachelor of laws degree in 1948 from the Rutgers University School of Low, New Brunswick, N.J. He graduated from the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., in 1958.
General Zink entered the service through the aviation cadet program, completed flight training and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Army Air Forces in March 1944. He was assigned to Eighth Air Force as a B-17 bomber pilot in Europe from March 1944 through May 1945. In November 1945 he was released from active duty as a captain. General Zink joined the New Jersey Air National Guard in January 1947 and held positions as wing executive officer; and flight, squadron, group and wing commander. He twice commanded the 108th Tactical Fighter Wing, McGuire Air Force Base, N.J. He served as the wing executive officer from February 1951 to February 1953.
In October 1961, during the Berlin airlift, he was again recalled to active duty, commanding the 7108th Fighter Wing, Chaumont Air Base, France, until July 1962. The 7108th Fighter Wing is the overseas element of the 108th Tactical Fighter Wing. He served as base detachment commander at the Air National Guard base, Atlantic City, N.J., from 1958 to 1967, and at McGuire Air Force Base, N.J., from 1967 to 1971.
He commanded the 177th Tactical Fighter Group until 1968, and then commanded the 108th Tactical Fighter Wing. During his command of these units, F-100s were assigned to the 177th Tactical Fighter Group and F-105s were assigned to the 168th Tactical Fighter Wing. In April 1971 he was assigned to Headquarters New Jersey Air National Guard and designated assistant chief of staff, air. General Zink returned to active military service in February 1979 to assume his current position.
He is a command pilot with more than 5,500 flying hours. His military decorations and awards include the Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal with four oak leaf clusters.
General Zink assumed the grade of major general June 16, 1972, with date of rank Dec. 23, 1973.
His hometown is Linwood, N.J.
(Current as of February 2021)Department of the Air Force Logo
#### IN RE WORST.

Patents; Anticipation.

The claims of an application for a patent for an improvement in window sashes *held*to be anticipated by patents theretofore issued.

No. 717.

Patent Appeals.

Submitted May 13, 1911.

Decided May 24, 1911.

Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents rejecting certain claims in an application for patent-

*Affirmed.*

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Mr.*W. *H. Singleton*for the appellants.

*Mr. Robert F. Whitehead*for the Commissioner of Patents-

Mr. Justice Eobb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner' of Patents refusing appellants,- Warren H. Worst and Elmer EKilmer, eight claims for an alleged invention relating to new *342and -useful improvements in window construction. One claim, more specific in its language, was allowed.

Claims 1, 2, and 4 are as follows:

> “1. A window sash provided at its corners with a detachable detent, in combination with the window frame having a socket block with which this detent engages.”

> *“2.*A window sash having at its lower corners vertically narrow grooves, in combination with detachable detents having plates adapted to these grooves, and a window frame having socket blocks in which the detents engage.”

> “4. The combination of a window sash cord detent consisting of a stock having a recess, and revoluble plates having a stem passing through the stock and into such recess, and provided with a button in such recess, with a socket block having a recess adapted to said button.”

Claims 5, 6, and 8 are for an article of manufacture covering the construction disclosed in the prior claims.

In appellants’ application as amended, they state that their invention “is designed more especially to provide a construction so that the window sash may be turned inwardly, making it unnecessary to remove the storm windows or screens when the outside of sash is to be washed, and also such that the sashes may be readily removed from the frame without having to take anything to pieces or requiring tools.” They then state: “The invention consists primarily in providing the sash at its corners with a detachable detent, and placing in the window frame a socket block with which this detent engages.” Unfortunately, however, their claims are so drawn as to read upon the prior art. Each of the three tribunals of the Patent Office, after a careful examination of the patent to Stumpf, October 13, 1908, and the patent to Zalikowski, May 18, 1889, held those patents an anticipation of the novel features of these claims. We could add nothing to the argument advanced by those tribunals, and therefore affirm the decision of the Commissioner, without prejudice, however, to the right of appellants to apply for leave to amend their claims if so advised.

*Affirmed.*
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1


                                CERTIFICATION OF
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Strasbaugh (the
"Company") for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the "Report"), the undersigned
hereby certify in their capacities as Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to their knowledge:

     1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated:  August 12, 2008          By: /s/ CHUCK SCHILLINGS
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                          Chuck Schillings
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          (principal executive officer)


Dated:  August 12, 2008          By: /s/ RICHARD NANCE
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                          Richard Nance
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          (principal financial officer)

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



Exhibit 12
 LAND OLAKES, INC.
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Year Ended December 31,2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002Earnings:Earnings before income taxes and discontinued operations
    
    $
    96,472
    
    
    $
    132,281
    
    
    $
    29,584
    
    
    $
    107,619
    
    
    $
    114,161(Less): Equity in earnings of affiliated
companies
    
    
    (13,295
    )
    
    
    (36,692
    )
    
    
    (58,412
    )
    
    
    (57,249
    )
    
    
    (24,166
    )Add: Minority interest in earnings
of subsidiaries
    
    
    1,449
    
    
    
    1,354
    
    
    
    1,648
    
    
    
    6,366
    
    
    
    5,487Add: Distributed income of equity investees
    
    
    4,736
    
    
    
    35,250
    
    
    
    47,846
    
    
    
    37,356
    
    
    
    26,407Add: Fixed Charges (1)
    
    
    88,382
    
    
    
    107,669
    
    
    
    105,529
    
    
    
    103,761
    
    
    
    96,815Less: Capitalized interest
    
    
    (95
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    (68
    )
    
    
    (8
    )
    
    
    (143
    )Earnings available to cover fixed charges
    
    $
    177,649
    
    
    $
    239,862
    
    
    $
    126,127
    
    
    $
    197,845
    
    
    $
    218,561Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    2.0
    
    
    
    2.2
    
    
    
    1.2
    
    
    
    1.9
    
    
    
    2.3
  (1)
    
    Fixed charges consist of the following: Year Ended December 31,2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002Interest expense, gross
    
    $
    69,968
    
    
    $
    89,978
    
    
    $
    88,356
    
    
    $
    86,541
    
    
    $
    82,011Rentals (interest factor)
    
    
    18,414
    
    
    
    17,691
    
    
    
    17,173
    
    
    
    17,220
    
    
    
    14,804Total fixed charges
    
    $
    88,382
    
    
    $
    107,669
    
    
    $
    105,529
    
    
    $
    103,761
    
    
    $
    96,815
#### Jersey Maid Ice Cream Co., et al. *v.*Bannon et al.

[No. 19,470.

Filed September 23, 1960.]

*Fred F. Eichhorn, Sr.,*of Gary, for appellants.

' *Strom*<6 *Whitted,*of Gary, for appellees.

Bierly, C. J.

A decree was rendered in the Lake Circuit Court in favor of appellees, and subsequently a motion for a new trial was filed which was overruled *60by the court on February 4, 1960. On the basis of a Praecipe, timely filed, requesting a Transcript of all the proceedings and all bills of exceptions, said Transcript and Assignment of Errors were due by April 4, 1960. A motion for extension of time to file the Transcript and Assignment of Errors was filed within the time permitted by the rules. Extension of time was granted to and including July 5, 1960. No further action was taken by the appellants in this cause.

Failure of appellants to comply with Rule 2-2 in reference to the time within which to file a Transcript and Assignment of Errors prevents further action by the appellants and no question is presented in this cause nor can any question be presented for decision, 55 Ind. App. 577.

Failure of appellants to perfect their appeal within the time prescribed by the rules, this case is now ordered stricken from the record and terminated with costs, if any, assessed against the appellants.

Note. — Reported in 169 N. E. 2d 215.