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

Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Weicheng Liu, certify that:

|1. | I have reviewed this amendment to the quarterly report on
      Form 10-Q of YOU On Demand Holdings, Inc.; and                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
|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.

Date: July 7, 2015

/s/ Weicheng
      LiuWeicheng LiuChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


---
<PAGE>   1



                                   EXHIBIT 5


                         [CROUCH & HALLETT LETTERHEAD]


                                  June 2, 1998


Voice Control Systems, Inc.
14140 Midway Road, Suite 100
Dallas, Texas 75244

Gentlemen:

         We have served as counsel for Voice Control Systems, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), in connection with the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (the "Registration Statement") filed under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, covering the issuance of 289,704 shares (the "Shares") of Common
Stock, $.01 par value, of the Company to be issued in connection with the
PureSpeech 1997 Stock Option Plan and PureSpeech Key Employee Stock Option
Plan.

         We have examined such documents and questions of law as we have deemed
necessary to render the opinion expressed herein.  Based upon the foregoing, we
are of the opinion that the Shares, when issued and delivered, will be duly and
validly issued and outstanding, fully paid and non-assessable.

         We consent to the use of this opinion as Exhibit 5 to the Registration
Statement.

                                                Very truly yours,



                                                /s/ Crouch and Hallett, L.L.P.
----

----

----

----

----

----

|   |   | To      Guarantor:                                |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                              |
|   |   | One      Enterprise Drive                         |
|   |   | Aliso      Viejo, CA  92656             |
|   |   | Attention:      Director of Corporate Real Estate |
|   |   |                                              |
|   |   | With      a copy to:                              |
|   |   |                                              |
|   |   | One      Enterprise Drive                         |
|   |   | Aliso      Viejo, CA  92656             |
|   |   | Attention:      General Counsel                   |
|   |   |                                              |
|   |   | To      Landlord:                                 |
|   |   |                                              |
|   |   | Lakepointe      Assets LLC                        |
|   |   | 5847      San Felipe Drive, Suite 2600            |
|   |   | Houston,      Texas 77057                         |
|   |   | Attention:      J. Richard Rosenberg              |
|   |   |                                              |
|   |   | With      a copy to:                              |
|   |   |                                              |
|   |   | 5847      San Felipe Drive, Suite 2600            |
|   |   | Houston,      Texas 77057                         |
|   |   | Attention:      Erik Eriksson, Jr., Esq.          |
|   |   |                                              |
|   |   | With      a copy to:                              |
|   |   |                                              |
|   |   | Day,      Berry & Howard LLP                  |
|   |   | 260      Franklin Street                          |
|   |   | Boston,      Massachusetts 02110                  |
|   |   | Attention:      Lewis A. Burleigh, Esq.           |
|   |   |                                              |
|   |   | With      a copy to:                              |
|   |   |                                              |
|   |   | Legg      Mason Mortgage Capital Corporation      |
|   |   | 100      Light Street                             |
|   |   | Baltimore,      Maryland 21202                    |
|   |   | Attention:      W. Kyle Gore                      |

----

----

----

|   | Fluor      Corporation |
|--------|------------------------|
|   |                   |
|   |                   |   |
|   | By:                    | /s/      J.O. Rollins |
|   | Name:                  | J.O.      Rollins |
|   | Title:                 | Group      Executive |
|   |                   |   |
|   |                   |   |
|   |                   |   |
|   |                   |   |
|   |                   |   |
|   |                   |   |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS AND OF THE THREE MONTHS APRIL 30,1998
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,368
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    125,289
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               130,927
<PP&E>                                         158,130
<DEPRECIATION>                                  78,909
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 210,179
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,365
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,837
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   210,179
<SALES>                                         89,387
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,387
<CGS>                                           57,717
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,717
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,199
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,939
<INCOME-TAX>                                       737
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,202
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,202
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4417 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4417

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
   To modify certain deadlines pertaining to machine-readable, tamper-
                   resistant entry and exit documents.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN DEADLINES FOR MACHINE-READABLE, 
              TAMPER-RESISTANT ENTRY AND EXIT DOCUMENTS.

    Section 303 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform 
Act of 2002 (8 U.S.C. 1732) is amended, in each of subsections 
(b)(2)(A), (c)(1), and (c)(2), by striking ``2004,'' and inserting 
``2005,''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Income  Partners  1988-A,  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and  statement  of  operations
contained  in its Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         236,767
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  141,808
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               378,575
<PP&E>                                         9,800,596
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,519,715)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,667,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          55,673
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,572,757
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,667,271
<SALES>                                        448,417
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               455,382
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  319,310<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                64,722
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            64,722
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   64,722
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128565 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128565 

 COA: 251712 

Midland CC: 99-009315-FC 

MICHAEL WESLEY BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 15, 2005 order 

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1024 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
----

| MAXXAM      Inc.   |                              |   |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------|--------|
| By:                          | /s/      Bernard L. Birkel        |   |   |
|                         | Bernard      L. Birkel, Secretary |   |   |
|                         |                              |   |   |
|                         | /s/      Ezra G. Levin            |   |   |
|                         | Ezra      G. Levin                |   |   |

----
10340.

#### Rome Railway & Light Co. *v.*Thomas.

Luke, J.

1. In a suit against a railroad company, a plea which admits that the plaintiff was .injured by the running of the cars? but denies negligence and asserts ordinary diligence upon its part, and alleges that the negligence of the plaintiff caused the injury, is not such a plea of justification as will entitle the defendant to the opening and conclusion in the case. See *Georgia Railroad*v. *Williams,*74. *Ga.*723 (2); Brunswick *&c*. *R. Co.*v. *Wiggins,*113 *Ga.*842-8 (39 S. E. 551, 61 L. R. A. 513). It was not error in this ease to deny to the defendant the right to open and conclude the argument.

2. This court can not say, as matter of law, that in this case it was error not to grant a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Upon the counter-showing as to diligence we can not say that it was error for the court to hold that there was a lack of the diligence required by law to discover the facts or witnesses alleged to be newly discovered. • It is true that much diligence was used, but upon the counter-showing the court was within the discretion authorized by law in determining that the defendant had sufficient information to put it on inquiry as to the possibility of securing the evidence. See *Atlanta Rapid Transit Co.*v. *Young, 117 Ga. 349 (43*S. E. 861); *Jinks*v. *State,*117 *Ga.*714 (1) (44 S. E. 814). As to one of the grounds of newly discovered evidence, see answer of Supreme Court' to certified question in *Central of Ga. Ry. Co.*v. *Moore,*149 *Ga.*581 (101 S. E. 668).

3. When considered in view of the note of the trial judge in the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial, and when the charge as a whole is considered, there is no reversible error in any of the assignments of error upon the excerpts from the charge of the court The case was fully and fairly submitted to the jury, upon the issues raised by the pleadings and evidence.

4. The evidence authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the *682trial fridge, and for no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial. See *Central of Ga. Ry. Co.*v. *Larsen,*19 *Ga. App.*423 (91 S. E. 517).

Decided January 27, 1920.

Action for damages; from city court of Floyd county—Judge Nunnally. January 4, 1919.

*L. II. Covington, Dean & Dean,*for plaintiff in error.

*Maddox & Doyal,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
Exhibit 10.1



 






EXHIBIT 10.1




SUMMARY OF BOARD COMPENSATION



During the year ending January 28, 2006, non-employee directors of Pacific Sunwear of California,
Inc. (the “Company”) receive compensation for their services to the Board of Directors and related
committees as follows:




	 	 	 
	Amount	 	Description
	$20,000

	 	Board member annual retainer, disbursed in five equal payments for
each regularly scheduled Board meeting.
	5,000

	 	Audit committee chairman annual retainer, disbursed in same manner as
Board member annual retainer.
	3,000

	 	Attendance fee for each in-person Board meeting.
	750

	 	Attendance fee for each telephonic Board meeting or committee meeting
of any kind.





On November 16, 2005, the Board of Directors approved the following compensation for non-employee
directors of the Company, effective January 29, 2006.




	 	 	 
	Amount	 	Description
	$30,000

	 	Board member annual retainer, disbursed in five equal payments for
each regularly scheduled Board meeting.
	10,000

	 	Audit committee chairman annual retainer, disbursed in same manner as
Board member annual retainer.
	5,000

	 	Non-audit committee chairman annual retainer, disbursed in same
manner as Board member annual retainer.
	3,000

	 	Attendance fee for each in-person Board meeting.
	1,250

	 	Attendance fee for each telephonic Board meeting or committee meeting
of any kind.





All directors are and will continue to be reimbursed for expenses incurred in attending meetings of
the Board of Directors. Each non-employee director of the Company currently receives, and will
continue to receive, an annual stock option to purchase 9,000 shares of Company common stock, with
an exercise price equal to the closing market price of the Company’s common stock on the date of
the grant. Greg H. Weaver and Seth R. Johnson, who are executive
officers of the Company, are not and will not
be paid any fees or additional remuneration for their services as members of the Board of
Directors.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4235

To allow the export or other provision of oil to Israel. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 28, 2004

Mr. FROST (for himself, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. WAXMAN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, 

and Mr. LANTOS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on International Relations 

A BILL

To allow the export or other provision of oil to Israel.

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

3 SECTION 1. ENERGY SECURITY OF ISRAEL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, the President may export oil to, or secure oil 

6 for, any country pursuant to a bilateral international oil 

7 supply agreement entered into by the United States with 

8 such country before June 25, 1979, or to any country pur9 suant to the International Emergency Oil Sharing Plan 

10 of the International Energy Agency. 
2

•HR 4235 IH 

1 (b) MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT.—The following 

2 agreements shall be deemed to have entered into force by 

3 operation of law and shall be deemed to have no termi4 nation date: 

5 (1) The agreement entitled ‘‘Agreement amend6 ing and extending the memorandum of agreement of 

7 June 22, 1979’’, entered into force November 13, 

8 1994 (TIAS 12580). 

9 (2) The agreement entitled ‘‘Agreement amend10 ing the contingency implementing arrangements of 

11 October 17, 1980’’, entered into force June 27, 

12 1995 (TIAS 12670).

Æ
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF
F. H. MERELLI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF KEY PRODUCTION COMPANY, INC.
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, F. H. MERELLI, Chief Executive Officer of Key Production Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying
report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Company fully complies with the requirements of that section.

I
further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial operations and results of operations of the Company.

| |  | /s/F.H. MERELLIF.H. Merelli
Chief Executive Officer
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------
| |  | August 13, 2002                                    

---

QuickLinks
NO. 12-10-00313-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

'

IN RE: ROBERT C. MORRIS,

RELATOR ' ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

'

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

In this original mandamus proceeding, Relator Robert C. Morris complains that 

the trial court signed an order setting aside a default judgment it granted against three of 

the four defendants Morris named in his lawsuit. He argues that the default judgment 

was final and therefore the trial court lacked plenary power to set it aside. Accordingly, 

he urges that the order setting aside the default judgment is void and the trial court abused 

its discretion by signing it.

Mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no 

adequate remedy by appeal. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 

(Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) 

(orig. proceeding). But mandamus is available to challenge a void order, even if the 

order was appealable and the party requesting relief failed to pursue an appeal. Dikeman 

v. Snell, 490 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. 1973); see also In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 SW.3d 

602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (when order is void, relator need not demonstrate 

inadequacy of appellate remedy).

Here, the default judgment was granted on February 4, 2010, but did not dispose 

of all parties in Morris’s suit. A default judgment that fails to dispose of all parties can 

be final only if the “intent to finally dispose of the case” is “unequivocally expressed in 

the words of the order itself.” See In re Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of 

McAllen, Inc., 167 S.W.3d 827, 830 (Tex. 2005) (quoting Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 

39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001)). The record in this proceeding does not include a copy 

of the written order granting the default judgment. Therefore, we are unable to address 
2

Morris’s contention that the order was final. Without a determination that the order 

granting the default judgment was final, we cannot conclude that the trial court lacked 

plenary power to set aside the default judgment. Consequently, Morris has not 

established that the order setting aside the default judgment is void.

Absent a showing that order setting aside the default judgment is void, Morris has 

not established that the trial court abused its discretion in signing the order. Therefore, he 

has not satisfied the first prerequisite to mandamus. Accordingly, the petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied. 

Opinion delivered October 20, 2010.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)