alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31


                                                  CERTIFICATIONS
I, Dale G. Nielsen, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Pacific Land and Coffee
 Corporation;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 quarterly
report;

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

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

     a) all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or  operation  of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls;
and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
annual  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: November 4, 2004

/s/ Dale G.  Nielsen
President
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION 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 of Zoltek Companies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zsolt Rumy, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:
 
 (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Date:  February 3, 2011
By:
/s/ ZSOLT RUMYZsolt RumyChief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7712

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. MICHAEL WAYNE ISLEY, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:05-cr-00216-NCT-2; 1:07-cv-00547-NCT-PTS)

Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 18, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Wayne Isley, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Michael Wayne Isley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Isley that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Isley failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Isley has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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

23 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit








 Exhibit 10.16
 


iMEDIA BRANDS, INC.
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION SUMMARY
Effective: June 13, 2019
Director annual retainer: Annual retainer, payable in cash, of $65,000 per director except for the chairperson who shall receive $130,000 and the vice chairperson who shall receive $105,000.  The chairperson and the vice chairperson shall receive no additional retainers for serving on committees of the board.  
Committee chair annual retainer: Annual retainers, payable in cash, of: 
	
		
	Audit Committee:
	$   20,000

	Human Resources & Compensation Committee:
	15,000

	Finance Committee:
	20,000

	Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee:
	12,000




Committee member annual retainer: Annual retainers, payable in cash, of: 
	
		
	Audit Committee:
	$    10,000

	Human Resources & Compensation Committee:
	--

	Finance Committee: 
	10,000

	Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee:
	--




Annual restricted stock unit grants: 
		
	•
	To acquire up to $65,000 of restricted stock units, calculated by dividing $65,000 by the closing sale price for a share of the Company’s common stock on the Nasdaq Stock Market on the date of the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders 


		
	•
	Granted to directors who are elected to the board at the annual meeting of stockholders 


		
	•
	Vest on the earlier of (a) the date preceding the subsequent annual meeting of the Company’s shareholders or (b) the first anniversary of the date of the grant.


Reimbursement of expenses: The Company shall reimburse directors for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with attending board and committee meetings. 
Additional provisions:
		
	•
	All cash retainers are paid quarterly in arrears and are subject to pro rata adjustment if an individual does not serve a complete fiscal quarter


		
	•
	All equity awards are pro rated for directors who are appointed or elected to the board subsequent to the Company’s annual meeting of shareholders.  In such event, the equity awards shall be granted on the first occurrence of the second trading date following the Company’s earnings release for a completed fiscal quarter following the appointment or election of such director (the “Grant Date”) based on the closing sale price for a share of the Company’s common stock on the Nasdaq Stock Market on the Grant Date 




Stock Ownership Guidelines:  Each non-employee directors is expected to hold four times his or her annual cash retainer and committee fees paid by the Company in the prior fiscal year, in Company stock, in accordance with the Company’s stock ownership guidelines.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: REAPPOINTMENT TO THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE : : : : : NO. 663 CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES DOCKET

**ORDER**
**PER CURIA** **M AN**  **D NOW**  , this 2 3 rd day of May , 2017, Walter J. McHugh, Esquire, Philadelphia, is hereby reappointed as a member of the Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee for a term of three years, commencing September 1, 2017.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. STEPHEN JANKOWSKI.

February 6, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

APR 21 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

vs.

DWAYNE BUFORD REED,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 98-5179

(D.C. No. 98-CV-70-B)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, KELLY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.**

Mr. Reed, an inmate appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks a

certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his motion to

vacate, set aside or correct his sentence, see 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Mr. Reed was

convicted of various federal offenses in connection with a 1993 attempted robbery

of a federally-insured credit union. His convictions were affirmed on direct
- 2 -

appeal, see United States v. Davis, 40 F.3d 1069 (10th Cir. 1994), and certiorari

review was denied on March 20, 1995. On January 26, 1998, he filed the instant

§ 2255 motion challenging his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) for

insufficient evidence and because the jury instructions did not conform to Bailey

v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995). These issues were not raised in his direct

appeal. The district court denied the motion as filed beyond the one-year

limitation period pursuant to § 2255 and United States v. Simmonds, 111 F.3d

737, 746 (10th Cir. 1997). See R. doc. 106.

On appeal, Mr. Reed argues that the one-year limitation period should run

from the Supreme Court’s decision in Muscarello v. United States, 118 S. Ct.

1911 (1998), because that decision clarified the meaning of “carry” in § 924(c)

and amplified Bailey. See § 2255(3). He also seems to argue that he could not

have discovered the facts for his claims without the guidance provided by

Muscarello, an untenable assertion. As noted by the district court, Muscarello did

not recognize any new right and Mr. Reed’s motion predates it by several months. 

See R. doc. 106 at 6. Moreover, Mr. Reed’s claims have been procedurally

defaulted for failure to raise them on direct appeal. See Bousley v. United States,

118 S. Ct. 1604, 1611 (1998). We therefore deny his application 
- 3 -

for a certificate of appealability. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
Order entered July 2, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01391-CV

COTINA MCGEE, Appellant

V.

NANCY M. HASSELL, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-05457-B

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case is overdue. By postcard dated December 4, 2012, we 

notified Lanetta Williams, the Official Court Reporter for County Court at Law No. 2 that the 

record was due and directed her to file the reporter’s record within ten days. To date, the 

reporter’s record has not been filed.

Accordingly, we ORDER Lanetta Williams, Official Court Reporter for County Court at 

Law No. 2, to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, either: (1) the reporter’s 

record; (2) written verification that no hearings were recorded; or (3) written verification that 

appellant has not been found indigent and has not paid for the record. We notify appellant that if 

we receive verification she is not indigent and has not paid for the record, we will order the 

appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c) 
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to:

Lanetta Williams

Official Court Reporter, County Court at Law No. 2

.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.2

Certification by the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,  as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
Blake Tohana, the Chief Financial Officer of Magna Entertainment Corp. ("MEC"), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that (i) the Annual Report on
Form 10-K (the "Report") of MEC for the year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MEC.

| | /s/BLAKE S. TOHANABlake S. Tohana, Chief Financial Officer
| | ----------------------------------------------------------

|
|

Date: March 16, 2006

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Magna Entertainment Corp. and will be retained by Magna Entertainment Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
BOOKS-A-MILLION, INC.'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR THE THIRTY-NINE WEEKS ENDED OCTOBER
30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,839
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,060
<ALLOWANCES>                                       747
<INVENTORY>                                    222,194
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               248,253<F1>
<PP&E>                                         121,245
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,645
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 312,528<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          159,505
<BONDS>                                              0<F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0<F4>
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           181
<OTHER-SE>                                     114,525
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   312,528
<SALES>                                        266,167
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               266,167
<CGS>                                          198,365
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  253,639
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,134
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,354
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (960)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (365)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (595)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (595)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.03)<F5>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.03)<F5>
<FN>
<F1>8,907  OTHER CURRENT ASSETS
<F2>1,675  OTHER ASSETS
<F3>36,944 LONG TERM DEBT
<F4>1,373  DEFERRED INCOME TAXES
<F5>THE EARNINGS PER SHARE CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SFAS NO. 128 AND BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE HAVE BEEN ENTERED IN PLACE
OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED, RESPECTIVELY.
</FN>


</TABLE>
(logo)CWCapital

ASSET MANAGEMENT

 

 

**Annual Statement asto Compliance**

**For the Period ofJanuary 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018**

 

 

**WFRBS 2014-C23**

 

 

Inaccordance with Item 1123 of Regulation AB and with the requirements detailed in§11.12 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) for theabove-mentioned CMBS pool, CWCapital Asset Management LLC (“CWCAM”), inits capacity as Special Servicer, is providing this Officer’s Certificate withrespect to the following:

 

(A)    a review of CWCAM’sactivities during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof (the “ReportingPeriod”) and of CWCAM’s performance under the Agreement has been made undersuch officer’s supervision; and

 

(B)    to the best of suchofficer’s knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM has fulfilled all itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

Shouldyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

Sincerely,

CWCapitalAsset Management LLC

 

/s/James P. Shevlin

 

JamesP. Shevlin 

President/ChiefOperating Officer

 

 

7501Wisconsin Avenue | Suite 500 West | Bethesda, MD | 20814
# PORTRAIT – ASTRONAUT FRANK BORMAN

S64-31455 (1964) --- Astronaut Frank Borman. Photo credit: NASA

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-s64-31455/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenSeptember 10, 1964ProducerJSCSize1537x1920pxPIA Numbers64-31455The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								May 03, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
No. 111.

#### Wiley C. Denson, *et al.*plaintiffs in error, *vs.*John F. Patton, defendant.

[1.] A bequest to Kto be held in trust for the use of Nancy O P during her natural life, does not create a separate estate in Nancy O P.

In Equity, in Floyd Superior Court. Decided by Judge Trippe, February Term, 1856.

*578This was a bill filed by Denson and several others, alleging-that John C. Patton . was trustee for Mrs. Nancy Patton, a married womaD, and as trustee held certain property which-, lad been bequeathed by the mother of Mrs. Patton to trustees for her use during life, and at her death to her daughter, Margaret Jane Patton; that complainants, upon the faiths of the trust property (John C. Patton being insolvent) had: furnished goods for the use and benefit of Mrs. Patton and of the negroes held in trust; that these debts were unpaid, and the trustee alleged that he had no power to sell any of the trust property, and could not otherwise pay them.

Complainants prayed that enough of the trust estate be sold to satisfy their demands. ■

On demurrer, the Court dismissed the bill, and this decision.. is alleged as error.

Underwood ; Shropshire, for plaintiffs in error...

Alexander, for defendant.

*By the Court.*

Benning, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] The plaintiffs insisted that John F. Patton, as successor to one A. Kennedy, held the slave, Cyrus, in trust for the - separate use of Nancy C. Patton, his wife. This they insisted was the effect of a clause in the will of Jane Patton. That clause is in the following words: “ And after the payment of " just debts, I will and bequeath that the balance of my property be appraised and equally divided between my children hereinafter named, John Franklin Patton, William Washington Patton, ll-ebecca Amanda Patton, Edmund Lewis Patton,., Sarah C. Patton. After one half a child’s part is given my grand daughter, Margaret Jane Patton, and the other half of " a child’s part to A. Kennedy, his executors or administrators, to be held in trust for the use of Nancy 0. Patton, during her-natural life,” &c.

*579Now it is clear that there is nothing in this clause which -creates in Nancy 0. Patton a *separate*estate in her share. *(Hill on Trustees,*420.)

If not, then the whole interest in her share vested in John. F. Patton, her husband.

If so, a bill against him *as trustee,*is not the way by which to reach that share. That share is not trust property, but is John F. Patton’s own property, and is directly subject to his debts ; and it may be reached at law by a *fi. fa.*against him.

We think, therefore, that the Court was right in holding .that there was no equity in the bill.