alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COLOR KINETICS INCORPORATEDI, William J. Sims, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Color KineticsIncorporated;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;     b) [omitted]     c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and     d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   December 30, 2005 /s/ William J. Sims   Date William J. Sims  Chief Executive Officer
#### Martha H. Noe *v.*George B. Turner.

Trial — Order Dismissing — Litigation Continued — Acquiescence by Both Parties.

Notwithstanding the order dismissing the case, or however it may-have heen obtained, the parties seemed to have acquiesced after-wards in the pendency of their litigation, the order was treated as waived.

APPEAL PROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT.

*November 10, 1871.*

*Jamies, for appellant.*

*Rodman, Farmer, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

Notwitstanding the order of dismission, and however it may have been obtained, the parties seemed to have acquiesced after-wards in the pendency of their litigation and we think the order may have been treated as waived, if not properly set aside by the court.

From the character of the issues and the depositions copied in the record, it is, at best, probable, that the appellant might have defeated the claim as illegal if he had not submitted the case to arbitration.

But no sufficient ground was disclosed for setting the verdict aside and it is not subject to revision now. If it was, there is no bill of exceptions by which this court could know what oral testimony may have been heard and considered by the referee, Unthank, and we cannot therefore say that the award was not right. Therefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
H. Res. 130

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

April 24, 1997.

Resolved,

SECTION 1. LUMP SUM ALLOWANCE FOR CORRECTIONS CALENDAR OFFICE.

There shall be a lump sum allowance of $300,000 per

fiscal year for the salaries and expenses of the Corrections

Calendar Office, established by House Resolution 7, One

Hundred Fifth Congress, agreed to January 7, 1997. Such

amount shall be allocated between the majority party and the

minority party as determined by the Speaker, in consultation

with the minority leader.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The allowance under section 1—

(1) shall be available beginning with the month of

May 1997;

(2) through the end of September 1997, shall be

paid from the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives on a pro rata basis; and
2

•HRES 130 EH

(3) beginning with fiscal year 1998, shall be paid as

provided in appropriations Acts.

Attest:

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 31 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      January 21, 1997.
    Resolved, That the House adopt the report of the Select Committee on Ethics 
dated January 17, 1997, In the Matter of Representative Newt Gingrich.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 31
                                   ----------

                                  CERTIFICATION
                                  -------------

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K
containing distribution and servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of CWMBS, Inc., CHL Mortgage
Pass-Through Trust 2004-9;

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 trustee by the master servicer 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 master
servicer 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 master servicer has fulfilled its
obligations under that agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the master
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing 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: The Bank of New York, as
Trustee.


Date: March 30, 2005


                                    /s/ Steve Bailey
                                    ------------------
                                    Steve Bailey
                                    Senior Managing Director
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7083

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ALVIERO MESA-LOPEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(6:06-cr-00998-HFF-5; 6:09-cv-70100-HFF)

Submitted: February 16, 2012 Decided: February 21, 2012

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alviero Mesa-Lopez, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Leesa 

Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Isaac Louis 

Johnson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alviero Mesa-Lopez seeks to appeal the district 

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

Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Mesa-Lopez 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I,
G.J. Hart, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Texas Roadhouse, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation 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):



Date: February 25, 2011

By:

/s/ G.J. HART G.J. Hart President, Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 914 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                  Union Calendar No. 11
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 914

                          [Report No. 105-14]

 To make certain technical corrections in the Higher Education Act of 
             1965 relating to graduation data disclosures.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 4, 1997

Mr. McKeon (for himself and Mr. Kildee) introduced the following bill; 
   which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

                             March 11, 1997

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
 To make certain technical corrections in the Higher Education Act of 
             1965 relating to graduation data disclosures.

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO DISCLOSURES REQUIRED WITH 
              RESPECT TO GRADUATION RATES.

    (a) Amendments.--Section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
(20 U.S.C. 1092) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(3)(B), by striking ``June 30'' and 
        inserting ``August 31''; and
            (2) in subsection (e)(9), by striking ``August 30'' and 
        inserting ``August 31''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall be 
effective with respect to disclosures required to be made for academic 
years beginning on or after July 1, 1998, except that compliance by any 
institution with such amendments before such date shall not be treated 
as a failure to comply with subsections (a)(3)(B) and (e)(9) of section 
485 of such Act as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                     





                                                  Union Calendar No. 11

105th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 914

                          [Report No. 105-14]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To make certain technical corrections in the Higher Education Act of 
             1965 relating to graduation data disclosures.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 11, 1997

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed`
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2014

h0421 

# Order

Clerk April 28, 2014

148603

MARILYNNE RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 148603

COA: 311240

Wayne CC: 09

- 031957

- NI

TAMMY SCHOONOVER and LYLE

SCHOONOVER,

Defendants

- Appellees.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 17, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Commonwealth for use, etc., *v.*W. P. Johnson, etc.

Sheriffs and Constable — Official Bond — Defalcation—Reflection—Second Bond.

Where a sheriff is re-elected it is the duty of the county court to require him to execute a new bond, and in the absence of proof to the contrary it will be presumed that he has done so, and when he defaults the action must be brought on the bond in force at the time of the defalcation.

APPEAL, PROM PIKE CIRCUIT COURT.

October 5, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The petition shows that Johnson, the sheriff, executed the bond upon which this action is based- -on the 20th of August, 1866, and that the official defalcation complained of did not occur until August, 1867. By the constitution and laws of this state Johnson’s first term of office -must have expired in January, 1867, and if he was re-elected it was the duty of the county court *203to require 'him to execute a new bond and again take oath of office.

*Burns, for appellant.*

*Apperson, for appellee.*

It is true -a sheriff holds until his successor is qualified, but no explanation is offered as to the reason for suing on the bond of August 20th, 1866, and in the absence of such explanation, it will not be presumed that the Pike county court failed to require Johnson to execute a second bond. We are therefore of the opinion that under the,state of facts set out in the petition the action could not be maintained. The demurrer was therefore properly sustained.

Judgment affirmed.
Case: 1:20-cr-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/20 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cr-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/20 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:2
Case: 1:20-cr-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/20 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:3
Case: 1:20-cr-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/20 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:4
Case: 1:20-cr-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/20 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:5
Case: 1:20-cr-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/20 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:6
Case: 1:20-cr-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/20 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:7
Case: 1:20-cr-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/20 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:8
Case: 1:20-cr-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/20 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:9
Case: 1:20-cr-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/20 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:10
Case: 1:20-cr-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/20 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:11
Case: 1:20-cr-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/20 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:12
Case: 1:20-cr-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/20 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:13
Case: 1:20-cr-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/20 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:14
Case: 1:20-cr-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/20 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:15
Case: 1:20-cr-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/20 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:16
Case: 1:20-cr-00268 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/20 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:17
No. 13,525.

#### Hamilton *v.*The State, ex rel. Harris.

*Bastabdy.*— ■Motion *for New Trial.*— Damages.—In a bastardy suit, the action of the court fixing the amount to be paid by the defendant is a part of the proceedings and judgment of the court after the trial has been concluded, and the question as to’the damages being excessive can not be raised by a motion for a new trial.

From the Benton Circuit Court.

D. *E. Straight*and *U. Z.*Wiley, for appellant.

*M. H. Walker*and *I. H. Phares,*for appellee.

Olds, J. —

This is a prosecution for bastardy. Trial had at the September term, 1886, of the Benton Circuit Court, and a verdict finding the appellant to be the father of the child. The cause was continued until the November term, 1886. At the November term the relatrix suggested the death of the child, and witnesses were produced and testified as to the expense of keeping the child during its lifetime, it having lived eighteen weeks, and to the value of the physi*349eian’s services for treating it. The court fixed the amount-to be paid by the appellant at $200, payable in instalments.

Filed Feb. 16, 1889.

Appellant then made a motion for a new trial, assigning as reasons that “ the finding and decision of the court are not sustained by sufficient evidence; ” that “ the finding and decision of the court are not sustained by sufficient evidence and are contrary to law;” that “the damages are excessive, being too large.”

It has been held by this court that the action of the court fixing the amount to be paid by the defendant in a bastardy suit is not a matter occurring at the trial, but a part of the proceedings and judgment of the court after the trial has been concluded, and the question as to the damages being excessive can not be raised by a motion for a new trial. *McIlvain*v. *State, ex rel.,*80 Ind. 69; *Scott*v. *State, ex rel.,*102 Ind. 277.

There is no question presented for the decision of this court.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
EXHIBIT 10. 7

                              CONSULTING AGREEMENT

Agreement made this 15th of March 2004 by and between Viper Motorcycle Company
with principal offices located at 5733 International Parkway, New Hope,
Minnesota 55428 USA, (the "Company") and Racing Partners Management, Inc.
located at 5507 Malibu Drive, Edina, Minnesota 55331 USA, (the "Consultant").

WITNESSETH

       WHEREAS, the Consultant reviews all manufacturing and development plans
and directs all aspects of the organization's objectives, and initiatives to
bring the Company's production plans to fruition.

       WHEREAS, the Company desires to utilize the services of the Consultant in
connection with its business.

       WHEREAS, this agreement supercedes any previous understanding between the
two parties, written or oral.

       NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants
hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:

       1.     The Company agrees to a Consultant agreement with Consultant for a
              period of three months.

              A.     The Company agrees to pay Consultant semi-monthly payments
                     of $4,500 until the agreement terminates on June 15, 2004.
                     Said payments under this agreement total $27,000.

              B.     The Company agrees to provide comprehensive medical
                     insurance for Consultant and his family.

              C.      The Company will reimburse Consultant for reasonable
                      out-of-pocket expenses.

       2.     The term of this agreement shall be three months commencing on
              March 15, 2004. The laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern
              this agreement.

       3.     Consultant shall agree to lock 800,250 shares owned by Consultant
              in the lockup agreement for Directors, Officers, and key
              Shareholders as required by Viper's underwriter of its initial
              public offering.

       4.     Consultant agrees to perform faithfully, industriously, and to the
              best of his ability, experience, and talents, all of the duties
              that may be required by the express and implicit terms of this
              Agreement, to the reasonable satisfaction of Viper. Such duties
              shall be provided at such place(s) as the needs, business, or
              opportunities of Viper may require from time to time.

       5.     Consultant can terminate this agreement at any time and by the
              Company with cause.

       6.     Consultant shall keep all Company information, trade secrets,
              vendor contracts, and any other information material to the
              Company strictly confidential at all times.

By:      /s/ John L. Fiebelkorn
         --------------------------------------------
         Chief Executive Officer, Viper Motorcycle Company

By:      /s/  John Silseth
         --------------------------------------------
         Racing Partners Management, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

YITZCHOK ROKOWSKY, on behalf of 

himself and all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

VERICITY, INC., MEMBERS MUTUAL, 

FIDELITY LIFE ASSOCIATION, APEX 

HOLDCO L.P., ERIC RAHE, CALVIN 

DONG, SCOTT PERRY, RICHARD 

HEMMINGS, JAMES E. HOHMANN, 

JAMES SCHACHT, LINDA WALKER 

BYNOE, STEVEN GROOT, JOHN 

FIBIGER, and NEIL ASHE, 

 Defendants. 

 Case No. 1:20-cv-456 

EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANTS’ 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS 

Exhibit Reference Description 

Exhibit A Vericity, Inc. Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on Aug. 9, 2019 

Exhibit B Vericity, Inc. Prospectus, filed with the SEC on June 20, 2019 

(excerpted) 

Exhibit C Second Amended and Restated Members Mutual Holding Company 

Plan of Conversion from Mutual Holding Company to Stock Form, 

Ex. 2.1 to Form S-1 filed with the SEC on June 4, 2019 

Case: 1:20-cv-00456 Document #: 33-1 Filed: 06/03/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:154