alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Adam Wasserman, Chief Financial Officer of Genesis Technology Group, Inc.
certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Genesis
Technology Group, Inc.

         2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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
annual report;

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

         4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

         a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

         6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in
this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


January 13, 2004

/S/     Adam Wasserman
        Adam Wasserman
Chief Accounting Officer
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ERIK KURT BOE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1082

[June 21, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Cheryl Caracuzzo, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2013-CF010169-BXXX-MB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-02-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                          10,956
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,030
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (60)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,149
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,752
<PP&E>                                          33,742
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,141)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,296
<BONDS>                                         97,664
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                    (52,680)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,276
<SALES>                                         18,517
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,517
<CGS>                                           12,360
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,360
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,961
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,862
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,524
<INCOME-TAX>                                       610
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                914
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       914
<EPS-BASIC>                                      6,626
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    6,626



</TABLE>
11360.

#### Grove Manufacturing Co. *v.*Salter.

Stephens, J.

1. The “sale-in-bulk act” of this State (Civil Code, 1910, §§ 3226-9) applies only to sales of “ any stock of goods, wares, or merchandise in bulk ” by a merchant, trader, or dealer in such articles. A bona fide purchaser for value of any stock of “goods, wares, or merchandise in bulk ” from a vender who is not such a merchant, trader, or dealer acquires good title to the property, even though he has not complied with the terms of this act. See, in this connection, Civil Code (1910), §§ 4120, 3225; *Cooney*v. *Sweat,*133 *Ga.*511, 512 (66 S. E. 257, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 758).

2 Where in a claim case the defendant in fi. fa. was a merchant, trader, *370or dealer in merchandise contemplated in the act, and had made a sale of his stock of goods, wares, or merchandise in bulk which was fraudulent for failure to comply with the terms of this act, a claimant who had bona fide and for value afterwards purchased such stock of goods, wares, or merchandise in bulk, without notice of such fraudulent sale, from another party who was not a merchant, trader, or dealer in merchandise in such property, acquired good title to the property.

Decided March 4, 1921.

Certiorari; from Laurens superior court — Judge Kent. January 27, 1920.

*William*Brunson, *Larsen &*Croclcett, for plaintiff.

3. The verdict and judgment as rendered for the claimant being authorized under the law and the evidence, the trial judge did not err in overruling the certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., mid Bill, J., concur.*
LEG EX 10.1 SUMMARY SHEET OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION




Exhibit 10.1 
SUMMARY SHEET OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 
The following summary sets forth current annual rates of cash and equity compensation for non-management directors, effective immediately following the May 5, 2015 Board meeting. 


	
									
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Compensation Item
	 
	Prior Year 
Compensation
	 
	 
	Current Year 
Compensation
	 

	 
	 
	 

	Cash Compensation
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Board Retainer
	 
	$
	60,000
	 
	 
	$
	60,000
	 

	Audit Committee
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Chair Retainer
	 
	$
	18,000
	 
	 
	$
	18,000
	 

	Member Retainer
	 
	$
	8,000
	 
	 
	$
	8,000
	 

	Compensation Committee
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Chair Retainer
	 
	$
	15,000
	 
	 
	$
	15,000
	 

	Member Retainer
	 
	$
	6,000
	 
	 
	$
	6,000
	 

	Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Chair Retainer
	 
	$
	10,000
	 
	 
	$
	10,000
	 

	Member Retainer
	 
	$
	5,000
	 
	 
	$
	5,000
	 

	Equity Compensation - Restricted Stock or Restricted Stock Units
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Vice Chair and Lead Director Retainer (including director retainer)
	 
	$
	260,000
	 
	 
	$
	260,000
	 

	Director Retainer
	 
	$
	135,000
	 
	 
	$
	135,000
	 






Directors may defer their cash compensation by participating in the Company’s Deferred Compensation Program, Effective as of December 1, 2011 (filed February 24, 2012 as Exhibit 10.13 to the Company’s Form 10-K). 
Directors may receive the equity component of their compensation in restricted stock or restricted stock units (RSUs). In either case, the awards have a 12-month vesting period ending on the day preceding the next annual meeting of shareholders. Vesting accelerates in the event of death, disability or a change in control of the Company. The number of shares is calculated by dividing the dollar value by the closing price of the Company’s stock on the grant date. RSUs are settled in shares of common stock and earn dividend equivalents at a 20% discount to the market price of Company stock on the dividend payment date. Directors may elect to defer settlement of the RSU award for 2 to 10 years after the grant date. 
The Company pays for travel expenses the directors incur to attend Board meetings. 
Our employee directors do not receive additional compensation for their Board service.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1876 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1876

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of 
 Representatives, Member's Representational Allowance for fiscal year 
                                 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of 
 Representatives, Member's Representational Allowance for fiscal year 
                                 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR HOUSE OF 
              REPRESENTATIVES, MEMBER'S REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCE FOR 
              FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for House of Representatives, 
Member's Representational Allowance for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$573,630,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Pierre Gaston LAPORTE, Defendant Appellant.

Docket No. 00-1742.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 9, 2001.

Kent B. Sprotbery, Ass’t Pub. Defender, Albany, NY, for appellant.

Barbara D. Cottrell, Ass’t U.S. Att’y, NDNY, Albany, NY, for appellee.

Present MESKILL, KEARSE, Circuit Judges, and SQUATRITO, District Judge.*

*

 Honorable Dominic J. Squatrito, of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticul, sitting by designation.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, and was submitted by counsel.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed.

Defendant Pierre Gaston LaPorte appeals from a judgment entered in the United States Court of Appeals for the Northern District of New York, following his plea of guilty before David N. Hurd, *Judge,*convicting him of being found in the United States without the permission of the United States Attorney General, after having been deported following conviction of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326; unlawfully possessing and using an identification document, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(4); and making false statements to Immigration and Naturalization Services agents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). LaPorte was sentenced principally to concurrent prison terms of 51 months on the § 1326 and § 1001 counts, and 36 months, to be served concurrently, on the § 1028 count. On appeal, he contends that a sentence of more than two years for his § 1326 offense was improper under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because the indictment did not allege his prior conviction of an aggravated felony, and such a conviction was neither admitted by him nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that such a sentence was nonetheless permissible in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), and that *Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres;*however, he pursues this appeal in order to preserve the issue for review in the Supreme Court. (See LaPorte brief on appeal at 6.) We conclude that the appeal lacks merit for the reasons stated in *United States v. Latorre-Benavides,*241 F.3d 262, 264 (2d Cir.2001) (per curiam).

We have considered all of Laporte’s contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11


            INTELECT COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS LIMITED AND SUBSIDIARIES

                       CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                       1997             1996
                                                   ------------    ------------
<S>                                                  <C>             <C>       
PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE

Shares in issue beginning of period                  15,027,728      11,385,117
Shares issued (weighted average)                      1,566,669         320,034
                                                   ------------    ------------
Weighted average shares in issue end of period       16,594,397      11,705,151

Dilutive common stock equivalents:
Stock options using treasury stock method                    --         822,860

                                                   ------------    ------------
Total weighted average common shares and
     common stock equivalents                        16,594,397      12,528,011
                                                   ============    ============

Loss for period (thousands of US Dollars)          $     (7,415)   $     (1,995)
                                                   ============    ============

Loss per share                                     $      (0.45)   $      (0.16)
                                                   ============    ============
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheets and statements of operations found on pages 3-5 of the Company's Form 10-Q
for the year to date, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               07 
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       195,415
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,895,938)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         3 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0 

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.8 2Q2015








Exhibit 10.8
Grants under 2015 Plan
SCHEDULE 2
Amendment to Executive Officer Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement
Section 2.3 of the Executive Officer Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement is amended to read as follows:


Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Agreement, in the event of a Change in Control followed within two years by (A) a termination of the Grantee’s employment by the Company without Cause prior to the date all RSUs have vested, or (B) initiation of the Good Reason Process by written notice of a Good Reason condition by the Grantee to the Company which subsequently results in a termination of the Grantee’s employment by the Grantee for Good Reason prior to the date all RSUs have vested, the unvested RSUs shall become fully vested and nonforfeitable as of the date of the Grantee’s termination of employment.  For purposes of this Agreement, (1) Good Reason shall mean that Grantee has complied with the Good Reason Process following the occurrence of any of the following events or actions: (i) any material reduction in Grantee’s base salary, unless a similar reduction is made in the base salary of all similarly situated executives, (ii) any material reduction in Grantee’s authority, duties or responsibilities, (iii) any material change in the geographic location at which Grantee must perform his duties, or (iv) any material breach of any written agreement with the Company by the Company; and (2) Good Reason Process shall mean that (i) Grantee reasonably determines in good faith that a Good Reason condition has occurred, (ii) Grantee notifies the Company in writing of the first occurrence of the Good Reason condition within 60 days of the first occurrence of such condition, (iii) Grantee cooperates in good faith with the Company’s efforts, for a period not less than 30 days following such notice (the “Cure Period”) to remedy the condition, (iv) notwithstanding such efforts, the Good Reason condition continues to exist, and (v) Grantee terminates employment within 60 days after the end of the Cure Period; provided, however, if the Company cures the Good Reason condition during the Cure Period, Good Reason shall be deemed not to have occurred.
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Nicola Pignati, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of New Focus, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 29, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of New Focus, Inc.



By:

/S/    NICOLA
PIGNATIName: Title:

Nicola Pignati Chief Executive Officer






CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, William L. Potts, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of New Focus, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended
December 29, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of New Focus, Inc.



By:

/S/    WILLIAM L. POTTS,
JR.Name: Title:

William L. Potts, Jr. Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO and CFO**

**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 on Form 10-Q of Angeles Partners X (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

(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 Partnership.

 
|   | /s/Steven D. Cordes     |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Name: Steven D. Cordes  |
|   | Date: August 12, 2011   |
|   |                    |
|   | /s/Stephen B. Waters    |
|   | Name: Stephen B. Waters |
|   | Date: August 12, 2011   |

 

This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
11848.

#### Collins *v.*Harrison.

Decided April 14, 1921.

Levy and claim; from Montgomery superior court- — -Judge Graham. August 6, 1920.

*A. C. Sajfold,*for plaintiff in error. *M. B. Calhoun,*contra.

Jenkins, P. J.

On a former writ of error (24 *Ga. App.*404, 106 S. E. 794), the law of this case was fixed and determined. Those portions of the charge of the court on the subsequent trial which now are complained of cannot, therefore, be adjudged to be erroneous statements of legal principles; and, under the same and additional evidence submitted at the second trial, such instructions cannot be held inapplicable to the issues involved. Under all the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence, the jury were authorized to find that the purchase made by the claimant was not bona fide.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens and Hill, JJ., coneu/r.*