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

 

**Certification**

 

I, Colin Heffron, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of GFI Group 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; and

 

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.

 
| Date:   April 30, 2015 |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
|                        |   |
| /s/   COLIN HEFFRON    |   |
| Colin   Heffron             |   |
| *Chief Executive Officer*   |   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 10.2


 


First Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement


of Steven Sipowicz


 


	
  Parties:

  	
   

  	
  Cascade Microtech, Inc.

  	
   

  	
  (“CMI”)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  2430 NW 206th Ave

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Beaverton, Or 97006

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  and

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Steven Sipowicz

  	
   

  	
  (“Mr. Sipowicz”)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  2415 NW Jonathon
  Place

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Portland, OR 97229

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date:

  	
   

  	
  October 27, 2005

  	
   

  	
  (“Effective Date”)

  



 


RECITALS


 


A.            Mr.
Sipowicz and CMI have entered into an Executive Employment Agreement dated July
12, 2004 in which CMI agrees to employ Mr. Sipowicz, and Mr. Sipowicz agrees to
serve, as Vice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer of
CMI (the “Employment Agreement”); and


 


B.            Mr.
Sipowicz is a valued contributor to CMI, and the Board believes his continued
employment will be crucial to CMI’s continued success; and


 


C.            In
order to provide an incentive for Mr. Sipowicz to continue his contribution to
CMI, the parties desire to amend the Employment Agreement with regard to the
accelerated vesting of stock options in the event Mr. Sipowicz’s employment is
terminated under certain circumstances following a Change in Control, as that
term is defined in the Employment Agreement.


 


AGREEMENT


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration the receipt
and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree that the
Employment Agreement shall be amended as follows:


 


Section 3.6A (iii) of the Employment Agreement shall
be deleted and replaced with the following:


 


iii)            Stock
Options:  All unvested stock options
held by Mr. Sipowicz as of the date of his termination from employment shall
accelerate and become immediately exercisable. 
Mr. Sipowicz’s vested stock options shall remain exercisable for a
one-year period after the termination date.


 


Except as set forth and amended hereby, the Employment
Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect according to its
terms.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused
this First Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement of Steven Sipowicz to be
duly executed and delivered as of the day and year first above written.


 


	
  Steven Sipowicz

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Cascade Microtech, Inc.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Steven Sipowicz

  	
   

  	
  /s/

  	
  Eric W. Strid

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  By: Eric Strid

  	
   

  
	
  Date: 

  	
  October 27, 2005

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Its: Chairman
  and Chief Executive Officer

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Date:

  	
  November 1, 2005

  	
   

  	
   

  
									



 


1
**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 Aspire International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10- for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bok Wong, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

|   | **•** | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: August 13, 2008 |   |   | /s/ Bok Wong                                             |
|-----------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |   |   |                                                          |
|                  |   |   | Bok Wong                                                 |
|                  |   |   | Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer |

 

----
INCORRECT

EYELID: OCCLUSION OF IRIS EYEGLASSES: OCCLUSION AND REFLECTIONS

IRIS CLOSE TO EDGE

BLUR:		FOCUS(L)	MOTION	(R)

IMPROPER	GAZE ANGLE

EXCESSIVE

ROTATION DILATION

UPSIDE-DOWN

IRIS ABSENT

LOW

CONTRAST

BACKGROUND REFLECTIONS 0N IRIS

UNEVEN	

ILLUMINATION

Instruct	subject	to look directly at	the Align camera axis with eye(s)

camera or fixa?on light	

Avoid bright	scenes in front	

Of the subject	

Ask subject	to open eyes wide. Subject Remove eyewear

may use fingers to hold eyes open.

Hold camera s?ll and at	proper

distance from	subject	

Remove glasses, align

camera with eyes

Properly align

camera with subject	

Align camera

with subject	

Wait	for drugs to wear off;

increase ambient	light	

	 	 	 	 	 Verify all LEDs are working and

not	covered

PATTERNED

CONTACT LENS

Ask to remove, or

do not	acquire iris

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

		 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Guide to Capturing

Iris Images Na>onal Ins>tute of Standards and Technology iris.nist.gov/irex US. Department	of Commerce

CORRECT

• Eyes wide open

• Iris centered and fully visible

• Eyes looking at	camera	

• Sharp, in focus

• Few reflec>ons or specular highlights

• Correct	le@ and right	labels

Right	eye Le#	eye

Poster developed by NIST in furtherance of its statutory responsibili>es under the Federal Informa>on Security Management	Act	(FISMA) of 2002, Public Law

107-347. The IREX	Program (iris.nist.gov/irex) advances high performance iris recogni>on through standards development	and tes>ng.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

ALLERGAN, INC., 

ALLERGAN SALES, LLC, and 

VISTAKON PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GLAND PHARMA LIMITED, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

C.A. No. 20-cv-04094 

RULE 3.4 NOTICE OF CLAIMS INVOLVING PATENT 

Pursuant to Local Rule 3.4, Plaintiffs Allergan, Inc., Allergan Sales, LLC and Vistakon 

Pharmaceuticals, LLC provide the following information to be used by the Clerk of the Court as 

required by 35 U.S.C. § 290: 

1. Name and address of Plaintiffs: 

Allergan, Inc. 

2525 DuPont Drive 

Irvine, California 92612 

Allergan Sales, LLC 

5 Giralda Farms 

Madison, New Jersey 07940 

Vistakon Pharmaceuticals, LLC 

7500 Centurion Parkway 

Jacksonville, Florida 32256 

2. Name and address of Defendant: 

Gland Pharma Limited 

Survey No: 143-148, 150 & 151 

Near Gandimaisamma Cross Roads 

D.P.Pally, Dundigal Post, Dundigal - Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal 

Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad, Telangana 500 043, India 

Case: 1:20-cv-04094 Document #: 6 Filed: 07/10/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:61
3. Names of Inventors: 

U.S. Patent No. 8,664,215: 

Avner Ingerman 

Frans Janssens 

Anton Megens 

Mark B. Abelson 

U.S. Patent No. 10,617,695: 

Avner Ingerman 

Frans Janssens 

Anton Megens 

Mark B. Abelson 

4. Asserted United Stated Patents: 

U.S. Patent No. 8,664,215 

U.S. Patent No. 10,617,695 

Dated: July 10, 2020 POLSINELLI PC 

/S/ Gary Hood 

Gary E. Hood 

Luke T. Shannon 

Colleen S. Walter 

150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 3000 

Chicago, IL 60606 

(312) 819-1900 

ghood@polsinelli.com 

lshannon@polsinelli.com 

cwalter@polsinelli.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Allergan, Inc. and Allergan 

Sales, LLC 

Case: 1:20-cv-04094 Document #: 6 Filed: 07/10/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:62
/S/ Robert Leighton 

A. Colin Wexler 

Robert D. Leighton 

GOLDBERG KOHN LTD. 

55 East Monroe Street 

Suite 3300 

Chicago, IL 60603 

(312) 201-4000 

colin.wexler@goldbergkohn.com

robert.leighton@goldbergkohn.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Vistakon Pharmaceuticals, 

LLC 

OF COUNSEL: 

Scott K. Reed 

Ha Kung Wong 

Sean M. McCarthy 

Neha Bhat 

VENABLE LLP 

1290 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10104 

(212) 218-2100 

SReed@venable.com

HWong@venable.com

SMcCarthy@venable.com

NBhat@venable.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs Allergan, Inc., and Allergan 

Sales, LLC 

Case: 1:20-cv-04094 Document #: 6 Filed: 07/10/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:63
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

KELLY B. DONAHUE,

Petitioner

v.

PENNSYLVANIA PAROLE BOARD,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 77 WM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29 th day of February , 202 4

, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Application for an Immediate Hearing is DENIED.

The “Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordinary Relief” is DENIED to the extent

it seeks extraordinary relief and DISMISSED to t he extent it seeks mandamus relief.
566 A.2d 631

#### In re Condemnation by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, of Right of Way for Legislative Route 1021, Section 1B, a Limited Access Highway, in the City of Pittsburgh. In re ESTATE OF Julia F. ROCHEZ, Deceased, by Edward Goslin et al. Appeal of COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Reconsideration Granted July 26, 1989.

Decided Nov. 14, 1989.

Jeffrey L. Giltenboth, Asst. Counsel, with him, John L. Heaton, Chief Counsel, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Thomas J. Dempsey, Pittsburgh, for appellees.

Before CRUMLISH, Jr., President Judge, and DOYLE (P.) and COLINS, JJ.

OPINION

CRUMLISH, Jr., President Judge.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (DOT) appealed an order of the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court, which concluded that DOT’s taking of the property of the Estate of Julia F. Rochez was excessive.

A panel of Judges of this Court affirmed the common pleas court’s order and remanded for a determination of damages. (Doyle, J., concurring and dissenting).

We subsequently granted reconsideration of our decision.*582
      1 In the opinion accompanying the May 17, 1989 order, it was stated that the building on the property in question had been leveled. Upon reconsideration, a review of the record reveals that while DOT had *condemned*the entire building, the building itself was left standing.

Although the original decision contained a misstatement of fact, we find that the misstatement is not material to the outcome of the case. We therefore amend the prior opinion of the panel to correct this misstatement and confirm our prior order in *Estate of Rochez,*126 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 59, 558 A.2d 605 (1989).

ORDER

This Court’s May 17, 1989 order in the above-captioned matter is confirmed and the order of the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court, No. GD-84-6940, dated August 3, 1988, is affirmed.

. Due to the untimely death of Senior Judge Kalish, the case was submitted for reconsideration to Judges Doyle and Colins, who originally heard oral argument in this matter, and was submitted on the briefs to President Judge Crumlish, Jr., for his consideration as a member of the panel.

DOYLE, Judge,

concurring and dissenting.

Respectfully, I would simply readopt my concurring and dissenting opinion as was filed in *Estate of Rochez,*126 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 59, 558 A.2d 605 (1989).
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

____________ No. 97-1527

____________ Calvin J. Weber, * * Appellant, * * v. * * United States Department of the Army, * * Appellee, *

-------------------------------- * Appeal from the United States Calvin J. Weber, * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Appellant, * * [Unpublished] v. * * United States Department of the Army, * * Appellee, *

-------------------------------- * Calvin J. Weber, * * Appellant, * * v. * * United States of America, * * Appellee. *The Hon orable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Missouri. -2- ____________ Submitted: June 18, 1997 Filed: July 9, 1997

____________ Before, HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Calvin J . Weber, a former civilian Army engineer, appeals from the distric t court's order and judgment dismissing his consolidated actions for failure to state a

1 claim upon which relief may be granted. Havi ng carefully reviewed the record and the parties' submissions, we conclude that dismissal was warranted and that an extended discussion is not necessary. Acco rdingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest. CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Case: 3:20-cr-50033 Document #: 13 Filed: 09/29/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:59
Case: 3:20-cr-50033 Document #: 13 Filed: 09/29/20 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:60
Case: 3:20-cr-50033 Document #: 13 Filed: 09/29/20 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:61
Case: 3:20-cr-50033 Document #: 13 Filed: 09/29/20 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:62
Case: 3:20-cr-50033 Document #: 13 Filed: 09/29/20 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:63
Case: 3:20-cr-50033 Document #: 13 Filed: 09/29/20 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:64
Case: 3:20-cr-50033 Document #: 13 Filed: 09/29/20 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:65
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ELIZABETH LUBECK and

ALAN LUBECK,

 Plaintiffs,

 vs.

ALLIANT CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, 

LLC, 

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:20-cv-04881

Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiffs, Elizabeth Lubeck and Alan Lubeck, by and through their undersigned counsel, 

advise the Court that the parties have reached a settlement in principle of all claims in this action. 

The parties are currently finalizing the terms of a written agreement and Plaintiffs request this 

Court keep this matter open for a period of 45 days to allow the parties to finalize the settlement, 

and continue to retain jurisdiction over this matter until Plaintiffs’ Notice of Dismissal is filed.

Dated: September 17, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

Elizabeth Lubeck and Alan Lubeck

By: /s/ Rusty Payton

Rusty A. Payton

PAYTON LEGAL GROUP

20 North Clark Street

Suite 3300

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(773) 682-5210

info@payton.legal

Arthur C. Czaja

LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR CZAJA

7521 N. Milwaukee Ave.

Niles, Illinois 60714

(847) 647-2106

arthur@czajalawoffices.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:20-cv-04881 Document #: 6 Filed: 09/17/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:23
#### Aleck L. LEE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REDSTONE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, a Federally Chartered Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 79-2365

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 18, 1980.

Rehearing Denied June 9,1980.

Currun C. Humphrey, Huntsville, Ala., for defendant-appellant.

Griffin & Griffin, Huntsville, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before GEE, RUBIN and POLITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 5 Cir. R. 18.

PER CURIAM:

The major issues in this case were disposed of by our opinion today in *Jacklitch v. Redstone Federal Credit Union,*615 F.2d 679 (5th Cir. 1980). In finding a violation of Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 226.7(a)(7), the district court held that, by analogy, the requirements of *Pollock v. General Finance Corp.,*535 F.2d 295, 299-399 (5th Cir. 1976), *petition for rehearing denied,*552 F.2d 1142, *cert. denied,*434 U.S. 891, 98 S.Ct. 265, 54 L.Ed.2d 176 (1977), were fully applicable to open-end transactions under 15 U.S.C. § 1637(a)(7).

This Court’s decision in *Elzea v. National Bank of Georgia,*570 F.2d 1248, 1249 (5th Cir. 1978), supports Redstone’s contention that *Pollock*should be limited to its peculiar facts. Nevertheless, the district court’s finding of a TILA violation is correct. Sec*683tion 226.7(a)(7) of Regulation Z requires that a creditor disclose to the customer, in a single written statement,

> *The conditions under which the creditor may retain or acquire any security interest in any property to secure the payment of any credit extended on the account,*and a description or identification of the type of the interest or interests which may be so retained or acquired. [Emphasis added].

The disclosure-on-the-same-page rule of *Harris v. Tower Loan of Mississippi, Inc.,*609 F.2d 120, 122-23 (5th Cir. 1980) and *Charles*v. *Krauss Co., Ltd.,*572 F.2d 544, 546 (5th Cir. 1978), is not applicable to open-end credit arrangements. *See Charles,*572 F.2d at 546 n. 1. However, the emphasized language of the regulation clearly requires that the creditor disclose more than the fact of its retention of a security interest. Here, the disclosure statement fails to disclose on its face either the after-acquired property clause or the 10-day limitation on its operation. While the reverse side of the document discloses an after-acquired property clause, even that portion of the document fails to reveal the 10-day limitation.

Thus, neither side of the statement meets the requirement of section 226.7(a)(7) that the lender disclose “[t]he *conditions under which*the creditor may retain or acquire any security interest in any property to secure the payment of any credit extended on the account . . . ” Therefore, the carryover application of *Pollock*is unnecessary, because the regulatory language itself mandates the additional disclosure by the creditor.

For these reasons, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET OF WINDSOR PARK PROPERTIES 6 AS OF JUNE 30, 1997 AND THE RELATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE SIX MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         473,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       3,963,900
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,349,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,576,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,340,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,149,200<F1> 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,576,600
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               443,300
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  142,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               155,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              63,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 82,600
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             82,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    82,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28<F2> 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN> 
<F1>  Limited and general partners equity.
<F2>  Net income per limited partnership unit.
</FN> 
        

</TABLE>
Pa-rraguirre 

A)3 J. 

Dougla 

J. 

Cherry 

corroborated his testimony that he was responsible for the victim's death. 

Furthermore, while an expert indicated at trial that the DNA testing of 

the semen found on the victim was inconclusive, more accurate DNA 

results would not be exculpatory or contradict Amato's testimony. 

Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the 

petition, and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2 

cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge 

Gregory George Amato 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2We deny Amato's motion to supplement the record as moot in light 

of this disposition. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) I 947A ea