alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1  I, Thomas A. Daiber, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005of Centrue Financial Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; and3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport.        Date:  May 11, 2006 /s/ Thomas A. Daiber   Thomas A. Daiber   Chief Executive Officer
#### U.S. Bank National Association, Respondent, v Michael H. Finkle et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

Submitted July 12, 2010;

decided September 16, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION

CHAIR’S NOTICE – Chairman E. Sequoyah Simermeyer

Visit www.NIGC.gov to learn more about the NIGC 3 For 35 Project— a

year-long project emphasizing the importance of conversations among 

the tribal gaming regulatory community about workforce preparedness.

On Monday, September 26th, I had the privilege to visit the

Oneida Nation of Wisconsin’s gaming commission. Chairman Mark

Powless and the Commission’s leadership, members, and legal team

graciously hosted me at their office. I am grateful for the

discussion, as well as the contributions your Nation’s

commission continues to make at the national level.

During our conversation, I discussed the NIGC attention to

Criminal History Record Information practices. This topic has

been a challenge for all tribes’ gaming commissions, and it is a

challenge that grew out of the NIGC’s need to reconcile its past

practices based on Federal Bureau of Investigation requirements.

I informed the commission that over the last two years the NIGC

has addressed a number of FBI audit findings related to managing

criminal history information and security policies. I also

discussed how despite the challenges of the pandemic, tribal

gaming commissions across the country like Oneida’s have been

invaluable partners and I am grateful their efforts.

NIGC in recent years has had a focus on the topic of the

regulatory community’s preparedness and I would be like

specifically to recognize Chairman Powless for leading a very

successful training session as part of the NIGC’s national

training topic on active shooters. His insights were invaluable.

My visit was productive, and I again thank the Nation for their 

hospitality, exchange of ideas, and willing to meet on such 

important topics.

###
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personaI privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, Special Emphasis Panel; Temporal Bone.                    

*Date:*                         July 2, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Shiguang Yang, DVM, Ph.D., Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities NIDCD, NIH, 6120 Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-8683.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.173, Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communicative Disorders, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 27, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-12892 Filed 6-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 10(g)

FIFTH AMENDMENT TO        HAGGAR CORP.        1992 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

1.Introduction. The Haggar Corp. 1992 Long Term Incentive Plan (as
amended, the "1992 Plan") was
initially approved and adopted by the stockholders of Haggar Corp., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on November 13, 1992. A First Amendment to Haggar Corp. 1992 Long Term Incentive Plan
was approved and adopted by the stockholders of the Company on February 24, 1994, and a Second Amendment to Haggar Corp. 1992 Long Term Incentive Plan was approved and adopted by the
stockholders of the Company on February 5, 1995. A Third Amendment to Haggar Corp. 1992 Long Term Incentive Plan was approved and adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company on
February 10, 1999, and a Fourth Amendment to Haggar Corp. 1992 Long Term Incentive Plan was approved and adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company on November 2, 1999. Pursuant to
Section 17, the 1992 Plan is hereby further amended as set forth herein.

2.Extension of Post-Retirement Exercise Period. For the purpose of extending the
post-retirement exercise period for options and rights granted under the 1992 Plan from three (3) years to five (5) years, Subparagraph 14(a) of the 1992 Plan is hereby
deleted in its entirety and the following Subparagraph 14(a) is substituted in its place:





3.Effect on Other Provisions. Except as expressly amended hereby, the 1992 Plan shall remain in
full force and effect as originally adopted and previously amended.

4.Adoption by Board. The foregoing amendments to the 1992 Plan were adopted by the Board of
Directors of the Company on April 27, 2000.

---

QuickLinks
# Wildfires and Acres
Exhibit 32

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 Annual Report of Warren Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), we, Norman F. Swanton and Timothy A. Larkin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to our knowledge:

(1)   The
report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

|March 4, 2008 |  |                                                                                           
|------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|              |  | /s/NORMAN F. SWANTONNorman F. Swanton Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer                
|              |  | /s/TIMOTHY A. LARKINTimothy A. Larkin Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2726 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2726

To modify the boundary of the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site 
         in the State of South Dakota, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 4, 2009

  Mr. Johnson introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To modify the boundary of the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site 
         in the State of South Dakota, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Minuteman Missile National Historic 
Site Boundary Modification Act''.

SEC. 2. BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.

    Section 3(a) of the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site 
Establishment Act of 1999 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 106-115) is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
        (4) and (5), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
            ``(3) Visitor facility and administrative site.--The 
        historic site shall consist of a visitor facility and 
        administrative site located on a parcel of land that--
                    ``(A) consists of approximately 25 acres of Forest 
                Service land located in the Buffalo Gap National 
                Grasslands;
                    ``(B) is located north of exit 131 on Interstate 90 
                in Jackson Country, South Dakota; and
                    ``(C) is generally depicted on the map entitled 
                `Minuteman Missile National Historic Site Boundary 
                Modification', numbered 406/80,011, and dated July 17, 
                2009.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited Balance Sheet as of November 30, 1996 and the unaudited Statement of
Operations for the three months then ended and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,037
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     63,112
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,974
<PP&E>                                           6,836
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,417
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,379,549
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,472,621
<BONDS>                                        436,002
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,790,900
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,873,334)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,379,549
<SALES>                                         22,113
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,113
<CGS>                                           10,440
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  381,913
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              69,970
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (429,770)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (429,770)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (429,770)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         302,423
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,595,245
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    938,104
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,391,985
<PP&E>                                       9,747,759
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,636,808)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,650,835
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,770,443
<BONDS>                                      2,405,814
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  3,172,411
<COMMON>                                     5,933,226
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,730,999)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,650,835
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,149,906
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,710,851
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (279,570)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 96,661
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             96,661
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    96,661
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 0 D0 15 2

. UGW ONALI LAW GROUP LLC v

. C HEROKEE FUNDI NG et a l

.

On No v em

b er 2

, 2 0 1 9

, Ug wo n al i Law Gro up , L LC fi led t h i s ap p l i cat i o n fo r

d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal s eek i n g rev i ew o f t h e t r i al co u rt ’ s O ct o b er 2

, 20 1 9 o rd er

o rd eri n g Ug w o n al i to i n s t an t er rem i t t o Ch ero k ee Fu n d i ng , L L C th e s u m o f $ 2 1 9 ,1 7 6,

t o res p o n d wi t h i n ten d ay s t o Ch ero k ee’ s d i s co v ery req u es ts

, an d t o p ay Ch er o k ee
$ 2 ,0 0 0 i n at to r n e y fees an d ex p en s es i n res p o n s e t o Ch ero k ee’ s m ot i o n t o co m p el

. W e, h o wev er, l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n fo r t wo reas o n s

. Fi rs t

, Ug wo n al i’ s ap p l i c a t i o n i s u n ti m el y

. To b e ti m el y , a d i s cret i o n ary

ap p li cat io n m

u s t b e fi l ed wi th i n 3 0 d ay s o f en t ry o f t h e ord er t o b e ap p eal ed

. OCGA

§ 5 -6 -3 5 (d ); Hi l l v. S t a t e , 2 04 Ga. Ap p

. 5 82

, 5 8 3 (4 20 SE2 d 3 9 3 ) ( 1 9 9 2 ). Th i s

s t at u to ry d ead l in e i s ju ri s d i ct i o n al

, an d we can no t accep t an ap p l i cat i o n fo r ap p eal n ot

m ad e i n co m

p l i an ce t h erewi t h

. Bo

yl e v. S t a te

, 1 9 0 G a. Ap p

. 7 3 4

, 7 3 4 (3 8 0 SE2 d 5 7 )
(1 9 8 9). Ug wo nal i fi l ed t h i s ap p l i cat i o n 3 1 d ay s aft er en try o f t h e o rd er it s e ek s to

ap p eal . Th e ap p l i cat io n i s t h erefo re u n t i m el y

. Seco n d

, t h e o rd er t h at Ug wo n al i s eek s t o ap p eal i s a n o n-fi n al o rd er, l eav i n g

t h e cas e p en d i n g b efo re t h e tri al co u rt

. Co n s eq u en t l y , Ug wo n al i was req ui red t o u s e

t h e i n terl ocu t o ry ap peal p ro ced u res – i n cl u d i ng o b tai n i n g a cert i fi cat e o f i m m ed i at e

r e v i e w fro m t h e t ri al co urt

– t o o b t ai n ap p el l at e rev i ew. See OCGA § 5-6 -3 4 (b );

Bo yd v. St a t e , 1 9 1 Ga. Ap p

. 4 3 5

, 43 5 (3 8 3 SE2 d 9 06 ) (1 9 8 9 ). Ug wo n al i ’ s fai l u re to

d o s o d ep ri v es u s o f ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er t h i s ap p l i cat i on

. See Ba i l ey v. B a i l ey , 2 6 6 Ga.

8 3 2 , 8 3 3 (4 7 1 SE2 d 21 3 ) (1 9 9 6 ).

Fo r t h es e reas o n s , t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n i s h e r e b y DI S M I S S E D f o r l ack o f
ju ri s d i ct i o n

. November 15, 2019C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 11/15/2019
#### Great Northern Insurance Company, as Subrogee of Margaret Summers, Plaintiff, v Zen Restoration Inc., Appellant, and Patrick Gallagher, Respondent.

[961 NYS2d 778]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered October 7, 2011, which denied defendant Gallagher’s post-note of issue motion to compel production of evidence and ordered that defendant Zen Restoration Inc. is precluded from offering certain evidence at trial, unanimously modified, on the law, so much of the order as precluded Zen from offering evidence vacated, and otherwise affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered May 25, 2012, which granted defendant Gallagher’s motion for summary judgment on his cross claim against defendant Zen for breach of contract, unanimously withdrawn in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.

*447The motion court appropriately denied defendant Gallagher’s post-note of issue motion to compel production of evidence. The parties had previously stipulated that all discovery was complete. Under these circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for the motion court to preclude Zen from offering evidence at trial, especially since Gallagher sought to compel, and did not move for sanctions pursuant to CPLR 3126 *(cf. Emmitt v City of New York,*66 AD3d 504, 505 [1st Dept 2009] [not an improvident exercise of discretion for motion court to grant plaintiffs motion to strike defendant’s answer to extent of precluding it from offering certain evidence]).

Concur—Andrias, J.P, Saxe, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Feinman, JJ.
#### MISSION APPLIANCE CORPORATION v. AJAX THERMOSTATIC CONTROLS CO.

Civil Action No. 25066.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

Sept 8, 1948.

C. R. Berne, of Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Gordon F. Basler, of Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is an action for breach of warranty. Plaintiff ordered some thermostats from defendant which plaintiff returned as unsatisfactory and for which plaintiff seeks a refund of the purchase price.

Defendant answered alleging that it had been agreed between the parties that any claims, such as here asserted by plaintiff, must be made within five days after receipt of the goods and that plaintiff did not present this claim within such period. Defendant also asserted a counterclaim for damages for breach of contract by plaintiff.

Plaintiff has filed a motion “for leave to reply to answer of defendant.” Plaintiff says that defendant has set up an affirmative defense, in alleging that the parties had agreed that any claims respecting defective goods must be made within five days of delivery, and that plaintiff should be permitted to plead that the alleged five-day clause was not part of the subject contract.

Rule 7(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., provides that:

> “(a) Pleadings. There shall be a complaint and an answer; and there shall be a reply to a counterclaim denominated as such; an answer to a cross-claim, if the answer contains a cross-claim; a third-party complaint, if leave is given under Rule 14 to summon a person who was not an original party; and there shall be a third-party answer, if a third-party complaint is served. No other pleading shall be allowed, except that the court may order a reply to an answer or a third-party answer.”

There is no question but that plaintiff may reply to the counterclaim without leave of court.

Whether there is to be a reply to an answer is a matter for the discretion of the court and a reply will not be ordered unless there is a substantial reason therefor. Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure, V. 4, P. 364.

Rule 8(d), which has been termed an “automatic denial,” eliminates the need of a reply and fully protects the rights of the plaintiff.

> “Effect of Failure to Deny. Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damage, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading. Aver-ments in a pleading to which no responsive *589pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied or avoided.”

There appears no substantial reason for ordering a reply to the answer herein and the motion will be overruled.