alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CROSSHAIR EXPLORATION & MINING CORP.
Suite 1240, 1140 West Pender Street
Vancouver, B.C.  V6E 4G1



August 14, 2007

J. Wayne Pickett
37 Wintergreen Road
Conception Bay South, NL  A1W 4V5

Dear Wayne:

Re:

Employment with Crosshair Exploration & Mining Corp. (the Company)

The Company is pleased to congratulate you on your promotion to Vice President Exploration effective August 14, 2007.

In recognition of your new position, the Company will immediately pay to you a bonus in the amount of C$20,000, less statutory deductions, being the bonus contemplated under the Executive Employment Agreement dated October 1, 2006 (the Original Agreement) between the Company and yourself.

Going forward, the Company will pay to you a bonus of up to C$50,000 per year, less statutory deductions, to be paid quarterly, based on the Companys fiscal periods.  The amount of this bonus shall be determined by the Companys Compensation Committee based on its assessment of the Companys financial circumstances and your performance, having regard to such factors as the success of the Companys exploration programs, your performance in your role as manager of the Companys St. Johns, NL office, the quality and punctuality of your reporting to the CEO and Board of Directors, peer group compensation comparisons and any other criteria the Compensation Committee deems relevant.

The Company will also immediately grant to you options to purchase up to 100,000 common shares in the capital of the Company at an exercise price of $1.54.  These options will be subject to vesting over a two year period and will expire on August 14, 2012.

All other terms and provisions of the Original Agreement remain in full force and effect.

If the foregoing meets with your approval, kindly sign and return the enclosed copy of this letter.

Yours very truly,

CROSSHAIR EXPLORATION & MINING CORP.



/s/ Mark J. Morabito



Mark J. Morabito

President and CEO

/jlb

Agreed to and accepted this ____ day of August, 2007.





/s/ J. Wayne Pickett



J. Wayne Pickett
Exhibit 31.1

 

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Stanley Louie, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Structured Products Corp., on behalf of CorTS Trust for The Boeing Company Notes;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

 

4.             I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

 

5.             The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trustee and the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank Trust National Association.

 

Date:     March 30, 2010

               

 

By:**   /s/**Stanley Louie    

Name:  Stanley Louie

Title:    Vice President, Finance Officer

(senior officer in charge of securitization
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Flint Wild","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/flint-wildnasa-gov\/","title":"Commercial Resupply","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"G8N70qMXaj\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/commercial-resupply\/\">Commercial Resupply<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/commercial-resupply\/embed\/#?secret=G8N70qMXaj\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commercial Resupply” — NASA\" data-secret=\"G8N70qMXaj\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/50675633317_375d38230a_k.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
SUPERIOR COURT

OF THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

FERRIS W. WHARTON NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE 

 JUDGE WILMINGTON, DE 19801-3733

 

December 8, 2014

Sterling Hobbs a.k.a. Amir Fatir

SBI # 13

1181 Paddock Road

Smyrna, Delaware 19977

Letter and Order

RE: Motion for Reconsideration – 75060892DI

Dear Mr. Hobbs:

The Court has received your Motion for Reconsideration dated October 30, 

2014. In the Motion you assert that, based on your claim for lack of jurisdiction, the 

Rule 61 Motion you filed on September 19, 2014 cannot be summarily dismissed 

because “Super. Ct. R. 61(i)(5) clearly states that ‘The bars to relief in paragraphs (1), 

(2), (3), and (4) of this subdivision shall not apply to either a claim that the court 

lacked jurisdiction...’”1

 

Superior Court Criminal Rule 61 was amended effective June 4, 2014. The 

amendment included a procedural mechanism by which the Court shall summarily 

dismiss second or subsequent Rule 61 Motions before considering the procedural bars 

contained in Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i).

2

 If the claims set forth in the second or 

subsequent Rule 61 Motion do not meet the pleading requirements of Section 

(d)(2)(i)-(ii), the Court shall dismiss the claim.3

 Therefore, because your Rule 61 

 1 Mot. for Reconsideration, D.I. 248, ¶ 3 (quoting Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5)). 2 See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2).

3 Id.
2

Motion did not set forth claims as required by Section (d)(2)(i)-(ii), the Court 

summarily dismissed your Rule 61 Motion. 

The Court need not examine your claims under Section (i) because your claims 

did not survive summary dismissal under the current version of the rule. As you note

in your Motion, Section (i)(5) renders the procedural bars set forth in Section (i) 

inapplicable to claims of lack of jurisdiction; however, because your claim was 

dismissed under Section (d), Section (i)(5) is inapplicable. Stated another way, the 

recent amendment effectively mandates that all second or subsequent post-conviction 

motions be summarily dismissed before examining the Motion under Section (i) 

unless the movant was convicted after a trial and either the claim is that new evidence 

exists to prove the movant’s innocence or the claim is that a new rule of constitutional 

law that has been made retroactive applies to the movant’s case.4

 

Therefore, your Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Ferris W. Wharton

 Judge

FWW/jnl

 4 See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(i)-(ii).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN THIS REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-29-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                   113,408
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            509,656
<ALLOWANCES>                                              15,000
<INVENTORY>                                              400,689
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       1,469,796
<PP&E>                                                 8,915,813
<DEPRECIATION>                                         2,941,611
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         8,016,205
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  4,555,260
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                   14
<COMMON>                                                     350
<OTHER-SE>                                             2,043,118
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           8,016,205
<SALES>                                                6,100,158
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       6,100,158
<CGS>                                                  3,855,370
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          3,855,370
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         152,475
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       303,272
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (822,904)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (822,904)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (822,904)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               (.23)
        



</TABLE>
#### COX, Trustee, v. SLOAN, Appellant.

(No. 2.)

Division One,

November 12, 1900.

Appeal from Cass Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *W. W. Wood,*Judge.

Reversed and remanded *(with*directions).

*J. T. Burney*and *B. H. Field*for appellant.-

*J). B. Holmes*and *B. T. Bailey*for respondent.

MARSHALL, J.

This is the defendant’s cross-appeal in the above entitled case. The essential facts and issues were all set out and decided in case No. 1, -to be found on page 411 of this volume, that being the plaintiff’s appeal in this same case. From the result reached in that ease it follows that the trial court committed no error against the defendant but that its error was prejudicial to the plaintiff instead of to the defendant, and therefore the defendant has no cause to complain. The judgment of the circuit court having been reversed on plaintiff’s appeal it is necessary in order to keep the record straight that the same order shall be made in this case as was made in that case, except that there being no merit in the defendant’s appeal, the costs of this cross-appeal are adjudged against the appellant. It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the circuit court be reversed and the cause be remanded to that court with directions to enter judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount of the two notes in suit, with interest thereon from January 8, 1897.

All concur.
#### Jno. Stout & Others, Executors, *v.*Virginia Moore et al.

Wills — Legacy—Distribution.

Heirs and! distributees have a right to demand distribution of an estate on the happenings of a contingency contemplated by the testator, and such payment would be a liquidation of the Executor’s liability on account of assets.

Descent and Distribution — Legatees’ Disability.

Executors, having the control of the funds necessary to educate a testator’s children, are the sole judges of whether any of them, by habits of dissipation, would not be entitled to a distribution of assets.

APPEAL FROM WOODFORD CIRCUIT COURT.

June 8, 1868.

*Porter & Greathouse, for appellant.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams :

The testator Juo. Nut evidently contemplated that his estate should be distributed at his wife’s death, or sooner, should his youngest child arrive at full age or marry, subject however to some specific directions as to the education of his children, the remaining interest of such as should become dissipated, consequently at the death of the testator’s widow the legatees had a right to demand a general distribution, the adults to themselves and the minors to their guardians, and such payments would be legal liquidation of the executors liability on account of assets.

The executors, and not a commissioner or trustee of the court, was vested with the control of the funds necessary to educate the testator’s children according to his directions in his will and so they were made the judges whether any of his children had acquired such habits of dissipation as to render unsafe in their hands the legacy given to them and if so dissipated they were to retain such legacy for life and pay over the profits to him or her, the time to judge of this matter by the executors must be limited to the time of general distribution for when once paid over the executors have no further control; the court therefore very properly referred all these matters to the judgment and discretion of the executors, hence the judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.2
                                 CERTIFICATIONS

      I, James J. Kovac, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
EFC Bancorp, Inc., certify that:

      (1)   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of EFC Bancorp,
            Inc.;

      (2)   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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;



Date: January 15, 2004              /s/ James. J. Kovac
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    James J. Kovac
                                    Executive Vice President and
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                    (principal financial and accounting officer)
FILEtr)

J'Alho ? kt,, (b/t'a/tr,

'o,,1c -c/- Q (3

FEBlozoz$$/

u.s. DlsrRlcrcouRl

TTc /<.td, 3c33C5-rz

LK CdLOtT, J,*t

7/( - sa

€Hfir 'rt{ 7

'4c/t W /U*e/ ;

rtt-rC.z/t ',L Ca.(\ezz,t/S

.'Tcc- d-C6, '-t'KruCase: 1:20-cv-02134 Document #: 313 Filed: 02/16/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:5041
\'\

S 11 \

\1

R..,, \ \

{\ \a \s \'$

A}\\ \ s \\ sBx t \qi n!'s

-::>KN *x\e

=N-+ \ w\\ r.\--N A

"\qs q

+€s \\\\5 \

_

:

...- rr^a

==

:V

=s

=$

-=---N

-Srr +J

r:

!i) iqi

".) xL bs ."L

=r l[:l tc ;i

.'l :''rl

Ld pn.

tt

tl r.r

u<]-

,cat_

V

a---t \

'=..9-N

r\---\\ -\- \ F_u'- \

r,u

?

i

v

.p

-:}5 ,-)

lnr ?U

f-+- x f--S:,. F- .|+

JHJJ t. s c) 3J .:J

-l ! <-?

\)\

t- rl'a: N

o

ca\

N

,,c

*,N

2

o

OsJ t\J ,-O \- \) +g,o .Ji+9ro

\] 'a \) v)d_ .._.]_J\ 

_ 

\

+>

cv-02134 Document #: 313 Filed: 02/16/24 Page 2 of 3 Pa
:J

P

Eo

B

6

!

6

E

6

h

L

a=

E

E

s

=

I

a

I

E

=s

o

:r

i{.:

$

@

c

o

!

o

o

o

cv-02134 Document #: 313 Filed: 02/16/24 Page 3 of 3 Pa
Case 2:15-mj-01937-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/22/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01937-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/22/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01937-JFM Document 3 Filed 12/22/15 Page 3 of 3
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lee Mohon","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lee-a-mohonnasa-gov\/","title":"Artemis I Liftoff","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"9xk2RnNbnG\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/amf-ksc-20221116-ph-clc04_0043\/\">Artemis I Liftoff<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/amf-ksc-20221116-ph-clc04_0043\/embed\/#?secret=9xk2RnNbnG\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Artemis I Liftoff” — NASA\" data-secret=\"9xk2RnNbnG\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/KSC-20221116-PH-CLC04_0043\/KSC-20221116-PH-CLC04_0043~large.jpg?w=600&h=1920&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1920}
### **EXHIBIT 11.1**

###  

**COMPUTATION OF INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE**

 
| ** **                                                                     | ** ** | **Three Months Ended September  30,** | ** ** | **Nine Months Ended September 30,** | ** ** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                                                     | ** ** | **2008**                                             | ** ** | **2007**                                                | ** ** | **2008** | ** ** | **2007** | ** ** |
| Diluted net income (loss) per share from  continuing operations:               |       |                                                 |       |                                                    |       |   |   |   |   |
| Net income (loss) from continuing  operations available to common shareholders |       | $                                                    | (4,364,000 | )                                                       | $          | 540,000 |   | $ | (12,656,000 | ) | $ | (8,072,000 | ) |
|                                                                           |       |                                                 |       |                                                    |       |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted average number of shares  outstanding                                 |       | 7,954,928                                            |       | 7,957,428                                               |       | 7,954,928 |   | 7,957,428 |   |
| Net effect of dilutive stock options based  on treasury stock method           |       | —                                               |       | —                                                  |       | — |   | — |   |
| Total average shares                                                           |       | 7,954,928                                            |       | 7,957,428                                               |       | 7,954,928 |   | 7,957,428 |   |
|                                                                           |       |                                                 |       |                                                    |       |   |   |   |   |
| Fully diluted net income (loss) per share  from continuing operations          |       | $                                                    | (0.55      | )                                                       | $          | 0.07 |   | $ | (1.59 | ) | $ | (1.01 | ) |

 

----