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

CERTIFICATION 

I, Mike H.P. Kwon, Chief Executive Officer of Axesstel, Inc. (the “Registrant”), certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Axesstel, 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 makethe 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 theRegistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.    The Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, 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 reportour 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 smallbusiness issuer’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 overfinancial reporting; and 

5.    The Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation 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 arereasonably 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 30, 2006
#### New York, L. E. *&*W. R. Co. *v.*The Breakwater.1 Old Dominion Steam-Ship Co. *v.*The Pavonia.

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

May 23, 1889.)

Collision"—Between Steamers—Delay in Backing.

A steam-vessel, which is bound to keep out of the way of another steamboat, will be held in fault if collision happen through her delay in backing, where the circumstances of wind and tide and signals exchanged were sufficient to have shown her that such backing could not be delayed without risk of collision.

In Admiralty. Cross-libels for damages by collision.

The steam-ship Breakwater was coming into the North river from sea, and as she approached her dock hauled in somewhat to the New York piers. The tide was ebb, and a strong north-west wind was blowing. When the Breakwater was still several piers below the Pavonia ferry-slip, the ferry-boat Pavonia was seen coming out of ber slip on the New York shore. The ferry-boat immediately blew one whistle to the Breakwater, indicating that she would cross the latter's bow, to which signal the Breakwater agreed by one whistle, and stopped, but did not back until the ferry-boat had again signaled once, when the steamer reversed. But the tide and wind carried the ferry-boat somewhat down stream, and the boats came in collision, the stem of the steamer striking the port side of the ferry-boat. Cross-libels were filed for the resulting damages.

*Wilcox, Adams & MackUn,*for the Pavonia.

*Owen & Gray,*for the Breakwater.

1

Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.

Benedict, J.

It is proved that the Breakwater, although she stopped her engine, did not then reverse it. It is also proved that if the engine of the Breakwater had been reversed as soon as possible after it was stopped there would have been no collision. The Breakwater*, having the ferry-boat on her starboard side, and upon a crossing course, was bound to do all in her power to avoid striking the ferry-boat as she crossed. It was in her power to reverse the engine sooner than she did, and by so doing to have avoided striking the ferry-boat as she did. The *512circumstances of wind and tide and the signals exchanged were sufficient to show to those in charge of the Breakwater that reversing the engines of the Breakwater could not be delayed without risk of collision. The delay that occurred in reversing the engines of the Breakwater was therefore a fault, and renders the Breakwater responsible for the collision that occurred; The ferry-boat was guilty of no fault.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Earl Berring, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 338]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obus, J., at suppression hearing; Edward J. McLaughlin, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 5, 2007, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender whose prior felony conviction was a violent felony, to an aggregate term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

The hearing court properly denied defendant’s request to call the undercover officer at the suppression hearing since the hearing evidence did not raise any substantial question as to the legality of the arrest *(see People v Petralia,*62 NY2d 47 [1984], *cert denied*469 US 852 [1984]; *People v Medina,*9 AD3d 251 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 739 [2004]). In this unusual “buy and bust” case, the undercover officer who bought the drugs seized defendant himself and held him for the arresting officer. The arresting officer testified that he observed the undercover officer struggling with defendant, who wore the same color shirt as one of the described sellers, and also testified that the undercover officer pointed out a bag on the ground containing numerous individual drug packages and stated that defendant had dropped it. The chain of events, viewed as a whole, clearly warranted the conclusion that there was a drug transaction and that defendant was one of the sellers *(see People v Quezada,*305 AD2d 207 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 586 [2003])

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
Opinion issued June 19 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 14 - 00302 - C V

——————————— IN THE INTEREST OF A.N.P., A CHILD On Appeal from the 313 th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 20 13 - 06289 J
MEMORANDUM OPINION On May 15 , 2014 , Appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1 (a) (1)
. No opinion has issued
. Although appellant failed to include a certificate of conference in her motion, more than 10 days have passed and no party has responded to the motion. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a).2

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. S ee T EX . R. A PP . P. 42. 2 (a) , 43.2(f) . We dismiss all pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp and Huddle
.
EXHIBIT 10.61 

 

FORM OF AMENDMENT TO THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED SHAREHOLDERS AND 

NOTEHOLDERS AGREEMENT 

 

The first paragraph of Section 5.1 of the Noteholders Agreement is amended and restated to read as follows: 

 

“Investor Approval Rights. For so long as an aggregate of at least 50% of the original aggregate principal amount of the Notesat maturity continues to be held by the Note Investors, the affirmative vote or consent of Note Investors holding greater than 50% of the aggregate principal amount at maturity of the then outstanding Notes held by Note Investors, voting as aseparate class, will be required for the following actions:” 

 

Section 5.1(i)(a) of the Noteholders Agreement is amended by changing the reference to “75%” to “50%.” 

 

Section 7.3 of the Noteholders Agreement is amended and restated to read as follows: 

 

“Amendment. Any term of this Agreement may be amended only with the written consent of (a) theCompany, (b) Investors holding, (i) in the case of amendments to provisions of this Agreement generally, 50% of the aggregate of the Common Stock Deemed Outstanding held by Investors, and (ii) in the case of any non-material change or technicalcorrection of this Agreement, a majority of the aggregate of the Common Stock Deemed Outstanding held by Investors, (c) in the case of amendments to Section 6.1 or 6.2(a) of this Agreement, in addition to the consents listed in clauses (a) and (b)of this Section, at least 66-2/3% of the aggregate of the Common Stock Deemed Outstanding held by Series C Investors, (d) in the case of amendments to Section 6.1 or 6.2(b) of this Agreement, in addition to the consents listed in clauses (a) and (b)of this Section, at least 50% of the aggregate principal amount at maturity of the then outstanding Notes, and (e) in the case of amendments to Section 5.1 of this Agreement, in addition to the consents listed in clauses (a) and (b) of this Section,greater than 50% of the aggregate principal amount at maturity of the then outstanding Notes held by the Note Investors; provided, however, that in the event the rights, preferences or obligations hereunder of one or more Investors are being amendedin a manner that is materially adverse to such Investors and in a manner that is different from those of other Investors, such rights, preferences or obligations may be so amended only with the consent of the Investors holding at least 50% in theaggregate of the Common Stock Deemed Outstanding held by Investors whose rights, preferences or obligations are being materially adversely amended in such different manner. Any amendment effected in accordance with this Section 7.3 shall be bindingupon each Investor and the Company.” 

 

- 1 -
#### FISCHER *&*PORTER COMPANY v. James F. HASKETT and Capital Controls Co., Inc.

Civ. A. No. 42087.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Sept. 22, 1970.

*306See also D.C., 287 F.Supp. 831.

John M. Calimafde, Sandoe, Hopgood & Calimafde, New York City, and Jay H. Tolson, Malis, Tolson & Malis, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

David N. Bressler, Shapiro & Bressler, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HANNUM, District Judge.

Presently before the court are motions by both the plaintiff and defendants for severance pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b). In its declaratory judgment action, plaintiff has requested that this court declare defendants’ patent invalid or, in the alternative, declare that plaintiff is the rightful owner of the patent. The defendants have filed a counterclaim alleging that plaintiff is infringing the patent, and by an amendment to its answer, defendants also allege certain antitrust violations. The purpose of plaintiff’s present motion is to sever the patent issues, i. e., validity, ownership and infringement, from the antitrust issues.

Defendants agree that there should be separate trials in this case, but argue that the severance should be such that the separate trial would be solely on plaintiff’s claim of ownership. Defendants contend that it is essential to first determine this issue so that they may then know what position they should take with respect to the issue of validity.

Defendants have most ably and skillfully briefed and argued this point, but nevertheless the court concludes that in the interests of judicial economy, convenience and expedience it would be more efficient to determine the issues of validity, ownership and infringement at one trial.

 The issue of ownership would only become relevant if the patent were held valid. The plaintiff has taken the position that it is invalid and the defendants have denied this allegation. Plaintiff has also alleged in the alternative that it is the true owner of the patent, and the defendants have likewise denied this allegation. Once issued, the patent is presumed valid and the rightful owner is presumed to be the one to whom it was issued. At trial plaintiff would bear the burden of establishing both of its allegations. The court perceives no inconsistencies or prejudice in determining these issues at one trial.

*307Accordingly, the court enters the following.

ORDER

And Now, this 22nd day of September, 1970, it is hereby ordered that:

1— Plaintiff’s motion for severance pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b) is granted.

2— Defendants’ motion for severance pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b) is denied.
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2379 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 3, 2023 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 616 East Main Street in St. Charles, Illinois, 

as the ‘‘Veterans of the Vietnam War Memorial Post 

Office’’. 

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


rfrederick on DSKB3L4F33PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2379 RFS

1 SECTION 1. VETERANS OF THE VIETNAM WAR MEMORIAL 

2 POST OFFICE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 616 East Main Street in St. 

5 Charles, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Veterans of the Vietnam War Memorial Post Office’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Veterans of the Viet11 nam War Memorial Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 2, 

2023. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


rfrederick on DSKB3L4F33PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       4,128,271
<SECURITIES>                                   819,500
<RECEIVABLES>                               44,113,330
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,889,376)
<INVENTORY>                                 46,993,202
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           105,471,717
<PP&E>                                      28,860,669
<DEPRECIATION>                            (11,126,027)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             198,136,155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       26,054,250
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    976,755
<COMMON>                                       151,501
<OTHER-SE>                                 130,774,462
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               198,136,155
<SALES>                                    106,052,941
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           106,052,941
<CGS>                                       73,197,178
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               73,197,178
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            32,030,584
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,781,321
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (612,604)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   253,736
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (417,472)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (417,472)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>
EX-10.13



 Exhibit 10.13 

AMENDMENT TO 
 PETCO
ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC. 
 2006 KEY MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE AWARD PLAN 

THIS AMENDMENT is made effective September 21, 2011, to amend the 2006 Key Management Incentive Award Plan (the “Plan”) of
PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”). Unless otherwise defined herein, each capitalized term used herein shall have the meaning afforded such term under the Plan. 

WITNESSETH: 
 WHEREAS, the
Board of Directors has determined that it is in the best interests of the Corporation and its stockholders to increase the number of shares of Common Stock authorized for issuance under the Plan by 3,000,000 shares; and 

WHEREAS, subject to stockholder approval as may be required by law and pursuant to the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Corporation has the
authority to amend the Plan to increase the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan, 
 NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED that the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
 Section 2.1(b) of the Plan shall be amended by replacing it in its
entirety with the following language: 
 “(b) Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 11.3, the aggregate number of shares of
the Company’s Common Stock which may be issued upon exercise of Options or rights or upon any such Award under the Plan shall be eleven million (11,000,000) plus any number of shares of the Company’s Common Stock available for
issuance under the PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc. 2006 Senior Executive incentive Award Plan; provided, however, that, with respect to Incentive Stock Options, in no event shall the aggregate number of shares of the Company’s Common Stock which
may be issued upon exercise of Incentive Stock Options exceed eleven million (11,000,000).” 
  

			
	PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Darragh J. Davis

	Name:	 	 Darragh J. Davis

	Title:	 	 VP, Corporate Secretary
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 223 

To amend title V of the Social Security Act to require assurances that 

certain family planning service projects and programs will provide pamphlets containing the contact information of adoption centers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. WITTMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title V of the Social Security Act to require 

assurances that certain family planning service projects 

and programs will provide pamphlets containing the contact information of adoption centers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Adoption Information 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 223 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROVISION IN FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES OF 

2 PAMPHLETS CONTAINING ADOPTION CENTER 

3 CONTACT INFORMATION. 

4 Title V of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701 

5 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 514. LIMITATION. 

7 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other pro8 vision of this title, a grant may be made or contract en9 tered into under section 501 for a family planning service 

10 project or program only upon assurances satisfactory to 

11 the Secretary that the project or program will— 

12 ‘‘(1) provide to each person to whom the med13 ical professional provides family planning medical 

14 services, at the time the person inquires about med15 ical or abortion services, a pamphlet that contains— 

16 ‘‘(A) a comprehensive list of the adoption 

17 centers located in the region (as determined by 

18 the Secretary) where the adoption services are 

19 provided; and 

20 ‘‘(B) the address and telephone number of 

21 each such center; and 

22 ‘‘(2) provide each such person an opportunity to 

23 read the pamphlet. 

24 ‘‘(b) PAMPHLETS.—The Secretary shall prepare, an25 nually update, and distribute to each project or program 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 223 IH

1 referred to in subsection (a) pamphlets described in such 

2 subsection. 

3 ‘‘(c) NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS.—No funds may be 

4 used to carry out this section, except funds that are appro5 priated to carry out this title.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
FIRST
AMENDMENT TO


AMENDED
AND RESTATED


EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT


 


This
First Amendment (the or this “Amendment”) to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement by and between Imprimis
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”), a Delaware corporation, and Mark Baum (the “Executive”),
is entered into as of July 31, 2015. Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms not defined herein have the meaning set forth
in the Employment Agreement (as defined below).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS,
the parties previously entered into that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement effective as of May 2, 2013 (the “Employment
Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS,
the parties wish to amend certain provisions of the Employment Agreement as set forth herein.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree to amend the
Employment Agreement as follows:


 


AGREEMENT


 


1. Duties
and Responsibilities. The third sentence of Section 2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read
as follows:


 


“In
addition, it is contemplated that at all times during the effectiveness of this Agreement, Executive shall be nominated for election
to the Board by the stockholders of the Company so that he may continue to serve as a director of the Company in accordance with
the Company’s governing instruments.”


 


2. Business
Development Performance Stock Options. Section 3(f) of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety.


 


3. Miscellaneous.
Except as expressly modified herein, all terms, conditions and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall continue in full force
and effect. In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between the Employment Agreement and the Amendment, the terms, conditions
and provisions of the Amendment shall govern and control. This Amendment and the Employment Agreement constitute the entire and
exclusive agreement between the parties with respect to this subject matter. All previous discussions and agreements with respect
to this subject matter are superseded by the Employment Agreement and this Amendment.


 


[Remainder
of Page Intentionally Left Blank]


 




    	 



    	 



    


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives, effective
as of the first date written above.


 


	COMPANY:	 	EXECUTIVE:
	 	 	 
	IMPRIMIS
                                         PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.





	 	MARK
                                         BAUM



	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/
    Andrew R. Boll	 	/s/
    Mark L. Baum
	Name


	 	Name: Mark L. Baum
	 	 	 
	Chief Financial Officer	 	7/31/2015
	Title	 	Date
	 	 	 
	7/31/2015





	 	 
	Date 	 	 	 


 


[Signature
Page to First Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement]