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



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION I, B. Michael Adler, President and Chief Executive Officer of WorldQuest
Networks, Inc. certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB
of WorldQuest Networks, 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; and3.
    
    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; andc.
    
    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 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; andb.
    
    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 23, 2004By:
    /s/ B. Michael AdlerB. Michael AdlerPresident and Chief Executive
Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

| | William C. Owens as Chief Executive Officer and President of Owens Financial Group, Inc., the General Partner of Owens Mortgage Investment Fund, a California Limited Partnership (the Registrant), and Bryan H. Draper, as Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Owens Financial Group, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (1) the Registrants Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the applicable requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ William C. OwensWilliam C. Owens Chief Executive Officer and President of Owens Financial Group, Inc., General Partner November 15, 2005
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ Bryan H. DraperBryan H. Draper Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Owens Financial Group, Inc., General PartnerNovember 15, 2005
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 24



                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------


     The  undersigned,  a member of the Board of Directors  and/or as Officer of
HOMESERVICES.COM  INC., a  corporation  registered in the State of Delaware (the
"Company"), hereby constitutes and appoints Steven A. McArthur, Paul J. Leighton
and  Galen  K.   Johnson  and  each  of  them,   as  his/her   true  and  lawful
attorney-in-fact  and agent, with full power of substitution and resubstitution,
for and in his/her stead, in any and all  capacities,  to sign on his/her behalf
the Company's  Form 10-K Annual  Report for the fiscal year ending  December 31,
2000 and to  execute  any  amendments  thereto  and to file the  same,  with all
exhibits  thereto,  and all other  documents in connection  therewith,  with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission and applicable stock exchanges,
with the full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
necessary  or  advisable  to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent
or his/her  substitute  or  substitutes,  may lawfully do or cause to be done by
virtue hereof.

Dated as of March 29, 2001.

/s/ Ronald J. Peltier               /s/ Jack W. Frost
---------------------------         --------------------------
Ronald J. Peltier                   Jack W. Frost


/s/ R. Michael Knapp                /s/ Steven A. McArthur
---------------------------         --------------------------
R. Michael Knapp                        Steven A. McArthur


/s/ Gregory E. Abel                 /s/ Richard R. Jaros
---------------------------         --------------------------
Gregory E. Abel                         Richard R. Jaros


/s/ W. David Scott                  /s/ David L. Sokol
---------------------------         --------------------------
W. David Scott                          David L. Sokol
12101.

#### Portervint *v.*The State.

Decided April 13, 1921.

Indictment for larceny of cow; from Thomas superior court — Judge Thomas. December 18, 1920.

*J. E. Oraigmiles,*for plaintiff in error.

*G. E. Hay, solicitor-general,*contra.

Luke, J.

This case is here upon the single assignment of error that the evidence did not authorize the verdict. This court cannot say that there is no evidence which would authorize the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., amd Bloodworth, J., concur.*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11.0

                             BTU INTERNATIONAL, INC.
        CALCULATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
             (Dollars in thousands, except share and per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                           For the Three Months Ended        For the Six Months Ended
                                           ---------------------------      --------------------------
                                            July 2,          June 27,        July 2,        June 27,
                                             2000              1999           2000            1999
                                           ---------        ----------      ---------       ---------
<S>                                           <C>                <C>            <C>          <C>
Net income                                 $   1,451        $     608       $   2,607       $   1,152
                                           ---------        ---------       ---------       ---------
Net income applicable to
     common stockholders                   $   1,451        $     608       $   2,607       $   1,152
                                           =========        =========       =========       =========

Weighted average number of
   shares outstanding:

     Basic Shares                          6,869,417        6,795,272       6,849,262       6,799,744
     Effect of Dilutive Options              453,616          129,512         448,998         111,768
                                           ---------        ---------       ---------       ---------
     Diluted Shares                        7,323,033        6,924,784       7,298,260       6,911,512
                                           =========        =========       =========       =========
Earnings per Share

     Basic                                     $0.21            $0.09            0.38           $0.17

     Diluted                                   $0.20            $0.09            0.36           $0.17
                                           =========        =========       =========       =========
</TABLE>


                                       13
#### Albert G. Hawes, et al., *v.*Mathew Garrison’s Devisees.

Infants — Real Estate — Power of Trustee to Sell — Purchaser.

A trustee when empowered to do so may sell the real estate of minors, without the intervention of the chancellor.

Purchaser.

The purchaser of the real estate of minors, sold by a trustee, is not required to see to it that the purchase money is properly applied.

APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

December 15, 1874.

*Lee & Rodman, for appellants.*

*J. S. Pirtle, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Coeer:

It was decided in *Lewis, et al., v. Harris, et al.,*4 Met. 353, that the rights and powers of trustees with reference to estates held for the separate use of married women, were not affected by Sec. 17, Art. 4, Chap. 33, of the Rev. Stat.; and as before, a trustee might, when so empowered by the writing creating the trust, sell such estate without the intervention of the chancellor, and he may do so now. That case is decisive of the question of the trustee’s power to sell the land' in contest in this case.

So far as the children of Mrs. Thorckmorton are concerned, the trustee had a clear power to sell, and his deed passed whatever interest they had in the land; and we concur with the chancellor that Sec. 23, Chap. 106, Rev. Stat., relieved the purchaser from all responsibility for the reinvestment of the proceeds of the sale.

The construction contended for by counsel for the appellants would restrict the operation of that section within much narrower limits than seems to be required by the language employed and the mischief intended to be remedied by its adoption. The statute seems never to contemplate that the purchaser shall be bound to look to the application of the purchase money, except he is expressly required to do so *by*the conveyance or devise by which the trust is created.

Indeed, we incline to the opinion that independent of the statute, the purchaser would not have been bound to look to the application of the purchase money. *Sims v. Lively,*14 B. Mon. 348.

Conceiving no error to the prejudice of the appellants, the judgment is *affirmed.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1211

THOR K. GIBSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,

District Judge. (1:12-cv-00067-IMK-JSK)

Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 4, 2013

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thor K. Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. Alan McGonigal, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Thor K. Gibson appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his civil action without prejudice for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Gibson v. United States, No. 1:12-cv00067-IMK-JSK (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 23, 2013). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Opinion issued March 26, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 14 - 00740 - CV

——————————— ZAMICK TANNARPATIA M ILHOUSE , Appella nt V. EBONIE MCCAIN , Appell e e On Appeal from the 311th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2006 - 74892
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Zamick Tannarpatia Mihouse, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s August 25, 2014 “Order on Motion for New Trial.” We dismiss. The trial court issued an “Order in Suit to Modify Parent

- Child Relationship” on March 17, 2014. On April 8, 2014, the amicus attorney filed a2

“Motion for New Trial or In the Alternative Motion to Withdraw the Final Order.” The trial court granted the motion for new trial on August 25, 2014. A ppellant filed a notice of appeal on August 30, 2014 , attempting to appeal from the trial court’s order gran ting the motion for new trial. “An order granting a new trial is an unappealable , interlocutory order.” Fruehauf Corp. v. Carrillo , 848 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993); see Shqeir v. Shqeir , No. 05

- 00

- 00044

- CV, 2000 WL 370914, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Apr. 12, 2000, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (“If [a] court grants [a] motion for new trial after [the] plenary power of the court has expired, as appellant claims in this appeal, remedy for that act lies by original proceeding.”). Further, the trial court’s September 17, 2014 order vacating its August 25, 2014 order granting the motion for new trial appears to have rendered this appeal moot. See Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzales , 33 S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex. 2000); In re Blatty , No. 01

- 14

- 00345

- CV, 2014 WL 4354169, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 4, 2014, orig. proceedi ng) (mem. op.) ; In re Mallory , No. 12

- 12

- 00195

- CV, 2012 WL 4097307, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Sept. 19, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (holding that trial court order vacating previous trial court order rendered complaint about previous order moot)
. On F ebruary 19, 2015, the Clerk of this Court issued a Notice that this Court might dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response3

within 10 days of the Notice explaining how this Court had jurisdiction over this appeal. Appell ant did not adequately respond to the Notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(a). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd.
11709.

#### Walters *v.*The State.

Decided December 16, 1920.

Accusation of sale of liquor; from city court of Hinesville — Judge W. C. Hodges. June *23, 1920.*

*Ben A. Way,*for plaintiff in error. *M. Price,*solicitor,' contra.

Luke, J.

1. This court has jurisdiction to review the decisions of any city court in the State established at a county-site which was a city when the act establishing the court was enacted, if the act or an amendment thereto provides for a jury of twelve upon the demand of either party in a cause, civil or criminal, and if the court has both civil and criminal jurisdiction, either over the limits of the city in which the court is located or over the entire county, or criminal jurisdiction over the city and civil jurisdiction over the county, or civil jurisdiction over the city and criminal jurisdiction over the county. *Welborne*v. *State,*114 *Ga.*793 (40 S. E. 857) ; *Ash*v. *Peoples Bank of Oliver,*149 *Ga.*713 (101 S. E. 912). Under this ruling the city court of Hinesville is a “ constitutional city court, ” and the motion of the defendant in error to dismiss the writ of error is denied.

2. “ A new trial will -not be granted because a witness, in his testimony on the trial, made a statement wholly unexpected to the defendant, who at the time knew that the statement was false, and that he could so prove by a witness whose testmony he could have procured had he thought such proof was necessary. The party surprised by the statement of the witness should have moved for a continuance. He could not take his chances of a verdict and then claim a surprise. ” *Sanders*v. *State,*7 *Ga. App.*603 (67 S. E. 696), and cit. Under this ruling the amendment to the motion for a new trial is without merit.

3. The remaining grounds of the motion for a new trial were expressly abandoned in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error.

*Judgment affvrmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., ooncur.*
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.2

In connection with the Annual Report of Global Diversified Industries (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending April 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Adam
Debard, Treasurer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The Information contained in the Report fairly represents, in
                  all material aspects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations on the Company.


                                                      By: /s/Adam Debard
                                                          ------------------
                                                      Adam Debard, Treasurer
Exhibit 10.14 2015.03.28






QORVO, INC.
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM


The following is a summary of compensation paid to the directors of Qorvo, Inc. (the “Company”) effective January 1, 2015. For additional information regarding the director compensation, please read the definitive proxy statement relating to the Company’s 2015 annual meeting of stockholders to be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A.


Compensation of Non-Employee Directors


The Company maintains a non-employee director compensation program pursuant to which our non-employee directors are paid as follows:


		
	•
	Annual cash retainer of $80,000 payable quarterly in arrears; 


		
	•
	Additional annual retainer of $58,000 for the Non-Employee Chairman;


		
	•
	Additional annual retainer of $10,000 for the Lead Director; 


		
	•
	Additional annual retainer for Committee Chairs:


		
	◦
	$20,000 for the Audit Committee Chair;


		
	◦
	$20,000 for the Compensation Committee Chair; 


		
	◦
	$10,000 for the Governance and Nominating Committee Chair; and


		
	◦
	$10,000 for the Corporate Development Committee Chair.


		
	•
	Annual restricted stock unit award, representing shares of Company common stock valued at $170,000.




The annual restricted stock unit awards are granted on the date of the annual stockholders meeting at which directors are elected, with the first award being granted at the 2015 annual stockholders meeting. Each award vests and becomes non-forfeitable as to 100% of the shares subject to the award on the first anniversary of the date of grant, subject to the director’s continued service from the date of grant until the vesting date.  Upon the initial election to the Board, a non-employee director is eligible for an initial restricted stock unit award (the “Initial Award”), representing shares of Company common stock valued at $245,000. Each Initial Award vests and becomes non-forfeitable as to one-third (1/3) of the shares subject to the award on each of the first, second and third anniversaries of the date of grant, subject to the director’s continued service from the date of grant until the applicable vesting date.  The initial non-employee directors of the Company did not receive an Initial Award due to their prior service as directors of the Company’s predecessor companies.


Directors may defer all or a portion of their cash retainers by participating in our Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan.


Directors are eligible to participate in our group medical and dental plans.


Directors are reimbursed for customary expenses for attending Board and committee meetings.















Compensation of Directors who are Employees of the Company 


Directors who are employees of the Company are not paid for their service as a director.
10712.

#### Bell *v.*The State.

Decided December 9, 1919.

Accusation of larceny; from city court of Americus—Judge Harper. June 21, 1919.

*Hixon & Face,*for plaintiff in error.

*Zach. Childers, solicitor,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

1. There is no merit in the motion of the State’s attorney to dismiss the bill of exceptions, and it is accordingly denied.

2. Where, after a plea of guilty has been entered and judgment and sentence pronounced in a criminal case, the defendant at the same term of the court files a written petition in which he asks that the judgment and sentence be vacated and that he be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty and to enter a plea of not guilty, on the grounds that he entered his plea of guilty under a misapprehension of the facts of the case, and that he is really not guilty of the offense to which he pleaded guilty, *and where the facts stated in his petition sustain these allegations,*it is error for the trial judge to dismiss the petition on *general demurrer.*

*Judgment reversed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOTITLE 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 Enzo Biochem, Inc., and
Subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Elazar Rabbani, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|                          |     |                                                             
|------------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: December
 10, 2010 | By: | /s/ Elazar
 Rabbani, Ph.D.                                  
|                          |     |                                                             
|                          |     | Elazar Rabbani, Ph.D.                                       
|                          |     | Chairman of the
 Board, Chief Executive Officer and Director

---