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

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Ronald Mustari, President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of Whitehall
Limited, Inc. certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Whitehall Limited, Inc.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrants other certifying officers 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 we 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of
the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officers 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
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

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: September 1, 2006



/s/ Ronald MustariRonald Mustari, President andChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10(a)(19)

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of this 7th day of May, 1990, by and between UtiliCorp United Inc., a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri, (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation"), and John R. Baker, an individual residing in the State of Missouri (hereinafter referred to
as the "Employee").

WITNESSETH THAT:

WHEREAS, the Employee is employed by the Corporation; and

WHEREAS,
the Employee desires assurance that he will receive a level of retirement income from and after his retirement from active service with the Corporation which is no less than he
would have received had he remained a participant in the Missouri Public Service Company Non-Union Pension Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "MPS Plan") (under the terms of said Plan as
in effect on July 31, 1988) until his retirement or other termination of employment; and

WHEREAS,
the parties hereto wish to rescind the Employee's participation in the UtiliCorp United Inc. Excess Benefit Plan and the UtiliCorp United Inc. Pension Restoration
Plan, if the Employee would have become an eligible participant under such plan; and

WHEREAS,
the parties hereto wish to set forth the terms and conditions upon which the Corporation shall pay supplemental retirement income to the Employee in addition to that provided by
qualified pension plans sponsored by the Corporation.

WHEREAS,
the parties hereto cancel and revoke any prior Supplemental Executive Retirement Agreements entered into.

NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual promises herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1.Retirement Benefit.



---







2.Effect of Early ESOP Distributions.



3.Payment of Benefits.



4.Post Retirement Health Care.



2

---



5.Death Benefits for Spouse.



6.No Contract of Employment.



7.Benefits Payable Only From Corporate Assets.



8.Non-Assignability of Benefits.



9.Amendment.



10.Governing Law.



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement, in duplicate, as of the date first written above.

|                      |  | UTILICORP UNITED INC.
"Corporation"
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------------
|ATTEST:               |  |                                    
|/s/DALE WOLFSecretary |  | By                                 
|                      |  | "Employee"                         
|                      |  | /s/JOHN R. BAKERJohn R. Baker      

3

---



SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT AGREEMENT

ADDENDUM A

"Assumptions"

In
addition to the assumptions set out in Paragraph 1 of the Agreement, the following assumptions shall be applied in determining the amount described in paragraph 1(c).

4

---



UtiliCorp United

Inter-Office Correspondence

|To:      |  | Jack Baker      |  | Date: 29 December 1995
|-------- |  | --------------- |  | ----------------------
|From:    |  | Ron Sipiora     |  |                       
|Subject: |  | Medicare Part B |  |                       

This will confirm our discussion of this morning:

5

---



QuickLinks
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Earl Dietrich, Ian Knight, J.J. Leal, Shannon McLeod, and Frontier 

MWD Systems, LLC v. Weatherford International, LLC and 

Weatherford, U.S., L.P.

Appellate case number: 01-19-00556-CV

Trial court case number: 2019-25169

Trial court: 61st District Court of Harris County

On October 17, 2019, the Clerk of this Court issued notice of intent to dismiss this 

accelerated appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants, Earl Dietrich, Ian Knight, J.J. Leal, Shannon 

McLeod, and Frontier MWD Systems, LLC, satisfactorily responded that they timely filed their 

notice of appeal on Monday following the 20-day deadline that fell on a Sunday. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 26.1(b), 4.1(a). 

The Court directs the Clerk of this Court to place this appeal on the accelerated appeal 

docket. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1, 38.6.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: __October 31, 2019___
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 6, 2017

No. 04

- 16

- 00778

- CR

Carl os DE LA O,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2001CR3651

Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez,

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The en banc court has considered A ppellant’s motion for en banc reconsideration; the

m otion is DENIED

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.7.

It is so ORDERED on February 6, 2017.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO :

____________ _______________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 October 17, 2019

b1010

Order 

Clerk

October 17, 2019

159263-6 & (240)

IVY ALICE WIMMER, f/k/a IVY ALICE

MONTANO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 159263, 159264, 159265 &

159266

COA: 340339, 340409, 340830 &

340996

Oakland CC: 2012-802216-DO

MARIO ALLAN MONTANO,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 4, 2018 

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. The motion to 

correct the record and for other relief is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN SUCH
REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>           JUN-30-1998

<CASH>                             13,407 
<SECURITIES>                         0    
<RECEIVABLES>                      19,711 
<ALLOWANCES>                         0    
<INVENTORY>                        63,744 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   98,883 
<PP&E>                            317,312 
<DEPRECIATION>                     41,592 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    469,595 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              48,646 
<BONDS>                           314,227 
<COMMON>                                1 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0    
<PREFERRED>                          0    
<OTHER-SE>                       (208,206)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      469,595 
<SALES>                            36,324 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   36,510 
<CGS>                              32,434 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      40,973 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      628 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 16,214 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (21,305)
<INCOME-TAX>                        9,048 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (12,257)
<DISCONTINUED>                       0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0    
<CHANGES>                            0    
<NET-INCOME>                      (12,257)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (12.3)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (12.3)

        

</TABLE>
Roundtable Discussion Participants List

as of June 17, 2010

Last Name First Name Organization Type

Baquis David U.S. Access Board Government

Barnes Janey User-View, Inc. Industry

Bean Carol ONC Government

Belden Jeffery University of Missouri Academia

Boone Edna HIMSS Industry

Friedman Charles ONC Government

Gilbert Juan Clemson University Academia

Goldsmith Clifford Microsoft Industry

Grayson Rebecca User Reflections Industry

Jain Sachin ONC Government

Karsh Ben-Tzion University of Wisconsin Academia

Kaye Ron FDA Government

Koppel Ross University of Pennsylvania Academia

Lide Bettijoyce NIST Government

Lind Scott Siemens Healthcare Industry

Lowry Lana NIST Government

Patel Bakul FDA Government

Patel Neil Special Care Center Industry/Healthcare

Quinn Matt AHRQ Government

Ray Alisa CCHIT Industry

Reider Jacob Allscripts Industry

Shuren Jeff FDA Government

Vanderheiden Gregg University of Wisconsin Academia

Werner Kristen Altarum Academia

Zayas-Caban Teresa AHRQ Government

Zhang Jiajie University of Texas Academia

Zheng Kai University of Michigan Academia
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

GIDEON BRADSHAW,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 199 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of November, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED , and the Application to file an amicus curiae brief in support for the petition for

allowance of appeal is also DENIED

.
10165.

#### Webb *et al. v.*Slaton, Governor.

Decided September 19, 1919.

Action on bond; from Brooks superior court—Judge Tboinas. September 14, 1918.

*Éennet & Harrell, Branch & Snow,*for plaintiffs in error.

*C. E. Hay, solicitor-general, E. E. Wilcox,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. Complaint is made that the court erred in admitting certain documentary evidence. This evidence is not set out either literally or in substance in the motion for a new trial, or attached thereto as an exhibit. Under the repeated and uniform rulings of this court and the Supreme Court, such ground of a motion for a new trial cannot be considered. *Walton*v. *Busby,*147 *Ga.*487 (94 S. E. 562); *Smith*v. *Leverett,*22 *Ga. App.*290 (2) (96 S. E. 8).

2. The court did not err in any of its rulings on the pleadings, nor in the charge of which complaint is made, nor in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I,    Anna T. Chew, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of  Monmouth Capital Corporation;



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(s) 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(s) 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 20, 2007









By:  /s/ Anna T. Chew

Anna T. Chew

Chief Financial Officer
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4817

AN ACT

To facilitate the resolution of a minor boundary enof transcontinental railroads. of the right-of-way granted for the construction originally conveyed by the United States as part road Company in Tipton, California, which were croachment on lands of the Union Pacific Rail-

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4817

AN ACT

To facilitate the resolution of a minor boundary encroachment on lands of the Union Pacific Railroad Company

in Tipton, California, which were originally conveyed by

the United States as part of the right-of-way granted

for the construction of transcontinental railroads.
2

•HR 4817 EH

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

3 SECTION 1. RELEASE OF UNITED STATES INTERESTS IN

4 CERTAIN RAILROAD GRANT LANDS IN TIP5 TON, CALIFORNIA.

6 (a) PROPERTY DEFINED.—In this section, the term

7 ‘‘property’’ means that portion of the existing building lo8 cated at 615 North Burnett Road in Tipton, California,

9 which encroaches upon land that, subject to a reversionary

10 interest, was conveyed by the United States pursuant to

11 the Act of July 27, 1866 (14 Stat. 292).

12 (b) RELEASE OF INTERESTS IN PROPERTY.—There

13 is hereby released, without consideration, all right, title,

14 and interest of the United States in and to the surface

15 portion of the property. The United States retains any

16 subsurface mineral rights held by the United States as of

17 the date of the enactment of this Act associated with the

18 property.

19 (c) INSTRUMENT OF RELEASE.—The Secretary of

20 the Interior shall execute and file in the appropriate office

21 a deed of release, amended deed, or other appropriate in-
3

•HR 4817 EH

1 strument effectuating the release of interests made by sub2 section (b).

Passed the House of Representatives October 4,

2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel AGUIRRE-REA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50486.

D.C. No. CR-00-403-FMC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2001.1

Decided June 1, 2001.

Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.

MEMORANDUM2

Victor Manuel Aguirre-Rea appeals the judgment of conviction and 57-month sentence following his guilty plea to a single count of being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Aguirre-Rea contends that in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. *592466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), section 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional because it allows a court to increase the maximum penalty at sentencing, based on whether a defendant was deported subsequent to a prior conviction for an aggravated felony, without submitting this fact to a jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This contention is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998) (upholding enhancement where the defendant admitted to underlying felony convictions and subsequent deportation) and by *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.2000), *as amended*(Feb. 8, 2001), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 121 S.Ct. 1503, — L.Ed.2d — (2001). *See United States v. Castillo Rivera,*244 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir.2001).

AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                               
<ARTICLE>                           5
                                     
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                107,329
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                          76,850
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            0
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        823,692
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       0
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                  0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          823,692
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        5,113
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         157,250
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     (190,282)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        38,145
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                           38,145
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            1.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                            1.42
        
 

</TABLE>
Of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. * Not for P ubl ication in West's Fe deral Report er

Citation Limit ed P ursuan t to 1st C ir. Loc. R. 32.3 

# U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f App eal s

For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 04-2505

JOHN T. SHEEHAN, JR., EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN T. O'BRIEN, JR., JAMES T. CONNELL,

Defendants, Appellants,

v. ANDREW S. RICHARDSON, TRUSTEE OF NEWPORT CREAMERY, INC. Plaintiff, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, Senior U.S. District Judge]
Before Lipez, Circuit Judge, Campbell and Bowman, Senior Circuit Judges. *
Kevin D. Heitke for appellants. John Boyajian with whom Boyajian, Harrington & Richardson was on brief for appellee.

June 23, 2006-2-

Per Curiam . After reviewing the parties' arguments in their briefs and during oral argument, we are satisfied that the district court correctly analyzed the case in its published memorandum and order. Sheehan v . Richardson, 315 B.R. 226 (D.R.I. 2004). On appeal, we find no arguments requiring our further elucidation. We therefore affirm

the entry of summary j u dgment for the appellee substantially for the reasons s e t o u t in the district court's memorandum and order. So ordered .