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

**BG FINANCIAL GROUP,INC.CERTIFICATION—PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

I, J. RobertGrubbs, certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of BG Financial Group, Inc.

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15eand 15d-15e) for the registrant and we have:

a)     designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)     evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)     disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)     allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)     any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

| Date: April 16, 2007 | Signature: | /s/ J. ROBERT  GRUBBS                    |
|---------------------------|------------|------------------------------------------|
|                      |       | J. Robert Grubbs                         |
|                      |       | *President and Chief Executive  Officer* |

 

----
9874, 9875.

#### Gainesville Buggy & Wagon Co. *v.*Morrow *et dlj*and *vice versa.*

Decided January 15, 1919.

Complaint; from city court of Hall county—H. H. Perry, judge pro hac vice. May 1, 1918.

*J. O. Adams, Ed,. Quillan, C. R. Faulkner,*for plaintiff.

*W. N. Oliver, W. B. Sloan,*for defendants.

Luke, J.

1. As to the case for -which he is chosen, a judge pro hac vice has all the powers and duties which, but for the disqualification, would devolve upon the regular presiding judge of the court, not only with respect to the jury trial of the case, but also with respect to matters of review and appeal, and to all other matters therein subsequent to the verdict and judgment. Civil Code (1910), § 4856; *Henderson*v. *Pope,*39 *Ga.*361; *Clayton*v. *Wallace,*41 *Ga.*268.

2. All applications for a new trial, except in extraordinary cases, must be made during the term at which the trial was had and' within the time prescribed by law. Civil Code (1910), § 6089. But the clerk is not required to enter such motions upon the minutes of the court, or to treat them otherwise than as pleadings regularly filed in vacation. Civil Code (1910), § 6080. The presentation and approval of such a motion, together with the rule nisi issued thereon, is an ex parte proceeding. There is no statute prescribing that such steps shall be taken while the trial judge is upon the bench presiding in the same or another case; nor is there any reason known to the law why a motion for a new trial may not be presented, approved, served, and filed, or why any one or more of such steps may not be taken, during a temporary recess of the court, or away from the court-house as well as at it. *King*v. *Sears,*91 *Ga.*577 (18 S. E. 830).

3. In view of what is said above, the refusal to dismiss the motion for a new trial was not error. The decision in the case of *Norris*v. *Pollard,*75 *Ga.*358 (3), is not in, point here. It does not relate to a case in which a judge pro hac vice presided. Nor is the case of *Pendergrass*v. *Duke,*140 *Ga. 550*(79 S. E. 129), in point, for in that case the judge who was presiding at the time the motion for a new trial whs presented, and to whom the motion should have been presented, had also presided at the time the verdict therein complained of was received, and had actually entered the final decree in the case, and his qualification to entertain the motion for a new trial and to issue the rule nisi thereon was unquestioned.

4. The evidence authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge. The charge of the court was, as a whole, full and fair, and for no reason assigned does this court see error requiring a reversal of the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed on both Hie main 'bill of exceptions and the cross-bill.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*
TUE-AM1

Measures & Metrics

Chairs: Hui-Min Huang & Seungbin Moon
TUE-AM1 – Contd.

Measures & Metrics

Chairs: Hui-Min Huang & Seungbin Moon
TUE-AM2

Special Session I: Performance Metrics for Mixed Palletizing Operations

Organizers: Stephen Balakirsky & Henrik Christensen
TUE-PM1

Interoperability & Sustainability

Chairs: John Horst & Ani Hsieh
TUE-PM2

Special Session II: Unmanned and Autonomous Systems Test Technology

Organizers: Robert Heilman
WED-AM1

Testing and Evaluating of Intelligent Systems

Chairs: Brian Weiss & James Gunderson
WED-AM1- Contd.

Testing and Evaluating of Intelligent Systems

Chairs: Brian Weiss & James Gunderson
WED-AM2

Special Session III: Evaluation of Human Detection and Tracking for Robot Safety, 

Collaboration and Interaction

Organizer: Tsai Hong & Roger Eastman
WED-AM2- Contd.

Special Session III: Evaluation of Human Detection and Tracking for Robot Safety, 

Collaboration and Interaction

Organizer: Tsai Hong & Roger Eastman
THU-AM1

Human-Machine Interaction and Collaboration

Chairs: Craig Schlenoff & Paul Oh
THU-AM1 – Contd.

Human-Machine Interaction and Collaboration

Chairs: Craig Schlenoff & Paul Oh
THU-AM2

Evaluation of Sensors for Object Pose Estimation in Manufacturing Applications

Organizers: Roger Eastman, Tsai Hong & Hui-Min Huang
THU-PM1

Special Session V: Integrated Performance Assessment Through Experimentations

Chairs: Marshal Childers
THU-PM2

Special Session VI: Performance Evaluation for Mapping and Navigation in 

Unstructured Environments

Organizers: Rolf Lakaemper & Raj Madhavan
10256.

#### Glover *v.*The State.

Decided March 7, 1919.

Indictment for assault with intent to rape; from Forsyth superior court—Judge Morris. November 2, 1918.

The accused was convicted of assault and battery. In the fourth ground of the motion for a new trial it is alleged that the court eTred in charging the jury as follows: “If this defendant assaulted this woman named in the indictment, put his hands on her in a rude manner, whether in an angry manner or not, with the intention of gaining [her] consent to have sexual intercourse with him, and without the intent to overpower her and commit rape, then he would be guilty of the crime of assault and battery.” It is alleged that this was error because the laying of hands upon a person in a rude manner must be without the consent of the person, to be criminal; that however rude the manner of the man might be, if it was with the consent of the woman it could not be assault and battery. Instructions to the same effect as those set out above are complained of in the fifth ground of the motion for a new trial.

*J. P. Brooke,*for plaintiff in error.

*John T. Dorsey, solicitor-general,*contra.

Stephens, J.

1. Under the particular facts of this case the 'trial judge committed no error as complained of in the fourth and fifth grounds of the motion for new trial.

2. The evidence supports the verdict, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7055

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus THEODORE THOMAS WAGNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CR-02-181; CA-05-404-PMD-2) Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 31, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore Thomas Wagner, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Theodore Thomas Wagner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wagner 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
exv10w3



 






EXHIBIT 10.3




Summary of Compensation Arrangements

for Chief Financial Officer




     The following is a summary of the compensation arrangements for Bradley B. Rush, chief
financial officer of the Company, effective August 4, 2005:




	 	•	 	an annual base salary in the amount of $325,000;
	 
	 	•	 	eligible to receive a 2005 target bonus amount in the range of $0 to $224,000; and
	 
	 	•	 	a grant on August 4, 2005 of 25,000 shares of restricted stock, which shares
vest on the first date after August 4, 2010 that is during a window period in
which the Company’s insiders are not restricted from selling Company common stock.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ABC Corporation I et al, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

THE PARTNERSHIPS and 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”, 

 Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-04806 

Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

 

DEFENDANT GYROOR-US’ EMERGENCY MOTION 

TO DISSOLVE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS 

Defendant Gyroor-US hereby moves this Honorable Court to dissolve the Preliminary 

Injunctions [Dkt. No. 113] and the Modified Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. No. 147] against it. 

In support of its Motion, Defendant herewith submits a Memorandum of Law with Exhibits. 

Date: 08/09/2021 

Respectfully, 

/s/ Tianyu Ju 

Tianyu Ju, Esq. 

GLACIER LAW PLLC 

200 E. Randolph Dr., Ste. 5100 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Attorney for Defendants 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 353 Filed: 08/09/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:8172
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this August 9, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing file 

with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and service was perfected on all counsel of record 

and interested parties through this system, which will deliver a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

documents via CM/ECF. 

Date: 08/09/2021 /s/ Tianyu Ju 

Tianyu Ju, Esq. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 353 Filed: 08/09/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:8173
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51356 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. JOSE LEMUS-MORALES Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:07-CR-373-ALL Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Lemus-Morales raises arguments that are foreclosed by Al mendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), whic h held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008). United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 2, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-51356

2 The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3855

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postshing Post Office’’. Laclede, Missouri, as the ‘‘General John J. Per- al Service located at 607 Pershing Drive in

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3855

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 607 Pershing Drive in Laclede, Missouri, as

the ‘‘General John J. Pershing Post Office’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3855 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 607 Pershing Drive in Laclede, Missouri, shall

4 be known and designated as the ‘‘General John J. Per5 shing Post Office’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘General John J. Pershing Post Office’’.

Passed the House of Representatives April 20, 2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

VALENTINO ROSSI, )

) Case No. 20-cv-4746

Plaintiff, ) 

)

) Judge Virginia M. Kendall

v. )

)

THE INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, )

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES, )

PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED )

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED )

ON SCHEDULE A HERETO, )

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AS TO A CERTAIN DEFENDANT

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff VALENTINO ROSSI

hereby dismisses with prejudice all causes of action in the complaint as to the particular Defendant 

identified below and in Schedule. Each party shall bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.

No. Defendant 

239 soleildumantin

The respective Defendant has not filed an answer to the complaint or a motion for summary 

judgment in this matter. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is 

appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: March 25, 2021 By: s/Michael A. Hierl _ 

Michael A. Hierl (Bar No. 3128021)

William B. Kalbac (Bar No. 6301771)

Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd.

Three First National Plaza

70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 580-0100 Telephone

mhierl@hsplegal.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

VALENTINO ROSSI

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Case: 1:20-cv-04746 Document #: 55 Filed: 03/25/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:4649
The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of 

Voluntary Dismissal was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court and served on all counsel of 

record and interested parties via the CM/ECF system on March 25, 2021.

s/Michael A. Hierl

Case: 1:20-cv-04746 Document #: 55 Filed: 03/25/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:4650
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a),

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

Principal Executive Officer

I, Paul E. Berger, M.D., certify that:

1. I have reviewed
this annual report on Form 10-K of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, 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)) for the registrant and have:

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under 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 being prepared;

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in 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 occurred during 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 control over
financial reporting; and

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):

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting 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 the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 30, 2006



/s/    PAUL E. BERGER,
M.D. Paul E. Berger, M.D. Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive
Officer)
#### RIFFLE & SONS/USA (formerly known as Edward J. Riffle & Co.), Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PIONEER SNACKS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-1021.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 15, 2004.

ON MOTION

LINN, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

Riffle & Sons/USA moves to transfer its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. No response has been filed.

Riffle states that it mistakenly designated this court, instead of the Ninth Circuit, in its notice of appeal. It does not appear that this appeal is within this court’s jurisdiction. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1295.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

*760The motion is granted. The clerk is directed to transfer this appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Order entered December 4, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05–12–01447-CR

No. 05-12-00498-CR

DENNIS EDWARD WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F08-35085-Y and F08-35087-Y

ORDER

The State’s second motion to extend the time for filing the State’s brief and to permit the 

late filing of the accompanying brief is GRANTED. The State’s brief will be filed in the above 

cause. 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3932 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3932

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend Public Law 99-338 to authorize the continued use of certain 
   lands within the Sequoia National Park by portions of an existing 
             hydroelectric project, and for other purposes.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3932

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend Public Law 99-338 to authorize the continued use of certain 
   lands within the Sequoia National Park by portions of an existing 
             hydroelectric project, 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. AUTHORIZATION TO REISSUE PERMIT.

    The first section of Public Law 99-338 is amended by striking ``one 
renewal'' and inserting ``3 renewals''.

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

    Section 3 of Public Law 99-338 is amended to read as follows:
    ``Sec. 3. The permit shall contain the following provisions:
            ``(1) A prohibition on expansion of the Kaweah Project in 
        Sequoia National Park.
            ``(2) A requirement that an independent safety assessment 
        of the Kaweah Project be conducted, and that any deficiencies 
        identified as a result of the assessment would be corrected.
            ``(3) A requirement that the Secretary prepare and submit 
        to Congress an update of the July 1983 report on the impact of 
        the operations of the Kaweah No. 3 facility on Sequoia National 
        Park.
            ``(4) Any other reasonable terms and conditions that the 
        Secretary of the Interior deems necessary and proper for the 
        management and care of Sequoia National Park and the purposes 
        for which it was established.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 

F
ACCEPTED

12-14-00110-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

1/7/2015 4:27:58 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 1/7/2015 4:27:58 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk