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

Rule 13a-14(a)

CERTIFICATION

I, John C. Fanning, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of COMFORCE Corporation, hereby certify that:

1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of COMFORCE Corporation;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to 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 functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|Date: March 28, 2007                
|                                    
|/s/ John C. Fanning                 
|John C. Fanning,                    
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### McClosky, Appellant, *v.*Regal Mining, Inc.; Administrator, Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, et al., Appellees. [The State ex rel.] Tarr *v.*Administrator, Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, et al.

[Cite as *McClosky v. Regal Mining, Inc.*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 171.]

(Nos. 95-2635 and 96-304

Submitted March 4, 1997

Decided April 16, 1997.)

*Cross & Rose Co., L.P.A.,*and *Richard S. Dodson, Jr.,*for appellant in case No. 95-2635.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, *Simon B. Karas,*Deputy Chief Counsel, and *William A. Thorman III,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellees *172Administrator, Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, and Industrial Commission of Ohio in case No. 95-2635.

*Joseph R. Compoli Jr.,*and *Mark S. Telich,*for relator in case No. 96-304.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Gerald H. Waterman,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondents in case No. 96-304.

The judgment of the court of appeals in case No. 95-2635 is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the authority of *Afrates v. Lorain*(1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 22, 584 N.E.2d 1175.

The complaint in mandamus in case No. 96-304 is dismissed because relator has an adequate legal remedy from the Industrial Commission’s order by way of appeal to the court of common pleas. R.C. 4123.512; *Afrates v. Lorain.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Janie Stearns, Respondent, v Robert Crawford, Appellant. In the Matter of Robert Crawford, Appellant, v Janie Stearns, Respondent.

[977 NYS2d 827]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (E. Jeannette Ogden, A.J.), dated May 7, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, granted the petition of petitioner-respondent for sole custody and primary physical residence of the subject children.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

*1326Memorandum: On appeal from an order that, inter alia, granted petitioner-respondent mother sole custody and primary physical residence of the parties’ children with access to respondent-petitioner father, the father contends that Family Court erred in transferring temporary custody of the younger child to the mother in the absence of an attorney representing the father. We reject that contention inasmuch as the father was unrepresented due to his own inaction in seeking assigned counsel *(see Gandia v Rivera-Gandia,*260 AD2d 321, 321 [1999]). The record establishes that, during two prior court appearances, the court advised the father of his right to counsel and gave him a referral for assigned counsel. At the third appearance, when the father again appeared without counsel, the court granted the temporary order upon the motion by the Attorney for the Children. In any event, assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in deciding the motion when the father was unrepresented by counsel, we conclude that reversal is not required because the order on appeal was issued following a subsequent evidentiary hearing at which the father was represented by counsel *(see generally Matter of Owens v Garner,*63 AD3d 1585, 1585-1586 [2009]; *Matter of Darryl B.W. v Sharon M.W.,*49 AD3d 1246, 1247 [2008]).

Contrary to the father’s further contention, the court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the children to award sole custody to the mother. The court’s custody determination following a hearing is entitled to great deference *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 173 [1982]), “particularly in view of the hearing court’s superior ability to evaluate the character and credibility of the witnesses” *(Matter of Thillman v Mayer,*85 AD3d 1624, 1625 [2011]). Here, the court’s written decision establishes that the court engaged in a “ ‘careful weighing of [the] appropriate factors’ ” *(Matter of Triplett v Scott,*94 AD3d 1421, 1422 [2012]), and the court’s determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Betro v Carbone,*5 AD3d 1110, 1110 [2004]; *Matter of Thayer v Ennis,*292 AD2d 824, 825 [2002]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lindley, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
Document

Exhibit 4.8

ELEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
PROTHENA CORPORATION PLC
2020 EMPLOYMENT INDUCEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN


This Eleventh Amendment (this “Eleventh Amendment”) to the Prothena Corporation plc 2020 Employment Inducement Incentive Plan (“2020 EIIP”), was made and adopted by the Board of Directors (“Board”) of Prothena Corporation plc, a public limited company organized under the laws of Ireland (the “Company”), on October 1, 2021 (the “Amendment Date”).


RECITALS


WHEREAS, the Company maintains the 2020 EIIP; and


WHEREAS, the Board believes it is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to amend the 2020 EIIP to increase the number of ordinary shares authorized for issuance under the 2020 EIIP.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the 2020 EIIP is hereby amended as follows, effective as of the Amendment Date:


AMENDMENT


1.Section 2.28 of the 2020 EIIP is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:


“2.28 “Overall Share Limit” means 1,385,000 Shares.”


2.This Eleventh Amendment shall be and hereby is incorporated into and forms a part of the 2020 EIIP, and except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of the 2020 EIIP shall remain in full force and effect.
2017-11-43 13:23 Gaming Commission 9186782840 >> P 1/2

Wyandotte Nation

15 Turtle Drive oS al 918-678-6359

Wvandotte. OK 74370 F 918-678-2840 Fax

Gaming Commission

November 13, 2017
VIA Fax: 202-632-7066

Jonodev Chaudhuri, Chairman
National Indian Gaming Commission
1849 C Street NW

Mail Stop #1621

Washington, D.C. 20240

Re: Comments on 25 C.F.R. Part 547.5 Proposed Rule

Dear Chairman Chaudhuri:

On behalf of the Wyandotte Nation, we are pleased to submit the following comments
on the proposed revisions contained in the National Indian Gaming Commission's (NIGC)
25 C.F.R. § 547.5 Proposed Rule (Proposed Rule) published on September 28, 2017. We
greatly appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the Proposed Rule during
this consultative process and hope that our comments provided below are fully
considered prior to the implementation of a final rule.

We appreciate the NIGC's willingness to consider the concerns that tribal governments
have raised in relation to the sunset clause in 25 C.F.R. § 547.5(b)(1). As you know,
tribal governments have long maintained that there is no basis or justification for


2017-11-13 13:23 Gaming Commission 9186782840 >> P 2/2

forcing the removal of grandfathered Class II gaming systems from the market,
particularly given that in nearly a decade, no evidence has materialized to suggest that
such systems pose either an integrity issue or a safety risk to patrons or gaming
operations. The NIGC’s effort to remove the sunset clause is a welcome step taken by
the NIGC in working with tribes to ensure Class Il gaming systems are effectively and
reasonably regulated by Tribal Gaming Regulatory Agencies (TGRAs).

However, the Tribe remains very concerned with respect to proposed language
contained in Section 547.5(g) - Records. As many commenters have noted throughout
the consultation process, the language which remains in Section 547.5(g) of the
Proposed Rule is unnecessary and only acts to create a situation of conflict and
uncertainty over confidential information that is adequately available to the NIGC as
needed on a government-to-government basis. Specifically, the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act (IGRA) requirements already provide the NIGC with sufficient access to
confidential Class II gaming information. Thus, unless the NIGC can demonstrate current
access to information held by the TGRAs is inadequate to enable NIGC verification of
technical standard compliance, the NIGC should consider removing the second and third
sentences of this subsection prior to implementing a final rule. Further tailoring Section
547.5(g) as suggested is consistent with the removal of the sunset provision discussed
above and further bolsters the working relationship of the NIGC and the TGRAs as
primary regulators.

In closing, we thank you for this opportunity to share our views and comments on the
Proposed Rule and we hope you consider our comments and concerns as you move
through the rulemaking process.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide any additional information.

Sincerely,

AMI MSE

Jeff Hitchcock
Chairman of Wyandotte Nation Gaming Commission
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UNION SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Union Security Insurance Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John S. Roberts, Interim President and 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, based on my 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 Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 9, 2007



/s/ John S. RobertsJohn S. RobertsInterim President and Chief Executive Officer
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 00403

- CV

In re Cleo Petricek

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

_______________________ ___________________

Chari L. Kelly , Justice

Before Ch ief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith

Filed: August 27 , 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         389,486
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  183,045
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,175,502
<PP&E>                                       4,201,785
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,526,279)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,420,185
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,001,267
<BONDS>                                      2,387,981
<COMMON>                                        20,959
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     715,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,420,185
<SALES>                                        717,685
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,059,022
<CGS>                                          285,895
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  646,912
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,611,037
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             354,322
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,553,249)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,555,649)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,555,649)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2
 
 CFO Certification
 
 I, Randy Jones, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Kaire holdings, Incorporated. (the "Company");
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; and
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.
 
 4. The Company's other certifying officers 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 Company 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 Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c) disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting;
 
 5. The Company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of Company'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 Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Company'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 Company's internal controls over financial reporting.
 
 Date: November 19, 2004
 
 /s/ Randy Jones
 Randy Jones
 Acting Chief Financial Officer
### NUMBER 13 - 1 4 - 00 557 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ DAVID MARTINEZ JR. , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 1 07 th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez , Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
A ppellant, David Martinez Jr., attempted to perfect an appeal from a conviction fo r aggravated assault. W e dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
T his Court ’ s appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is invoked by a timely filed notice of appeal. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Absent a timely filed notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not have jurisdic tion to address the2

merits of the appeal and can take n o action other than to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
T he trial court imposed sentence in this matter on March 28, 2013

. A ppellant filed

an “ O ut of Time Notice of Appeal ” on September 23, 2014. O n September 26, 2014, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that this Court does not have jurisdiction and that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the Court ’ s directive. A ppellant has not filed a
response to the Court ’ s directive. U nless a motion for new trial has been timely filed, a notice of appeal must be fi led within thirty days after the day sentence is impo sed or suspended in open court, or after the day the trial court enters an appealable order. T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 26.2 (a)(1). W here a timely motion for new trial has bee n filed, the notice of appeal must be filed within ninety days after the day sentence is im posed or suspended in open court. See id. 26.2(a)(2).
T he time within which to file the notice may be enlarged if, within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the no tice, the party files the notice of appeal and a motion complying
with Rule 10 .5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. 26.3.
A ppellant ’ s notice of appeal, filed more than sixteen months after sentence was imposed, was untimely, and accordingly, we lack jurisdicti on over the appeal. See Slaton , 981 S.W.2d at 210. A ppellant may be entitled to an out

- of

- time appeal by filing a post
- conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Crim inal Appeals; however, the availability of that remedy is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. A rt. 11.07, § 3(a) (Vernon 2005); see also Ex parte Garcia , 988 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 99).3

T he a ppeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. A ll pending motions are likewise DISMISS ED. PER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed the 6 th day of November , 2014.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Stayka DOLJEVA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-4269.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2009.

Decided: May 11, 2009.

John D. Elliott, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. William E. Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Stayka Doljeva pled guilty to conspiracy to commit marriage fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2006), and was sentenced to two months in prison. She now appeals. Her attorney *204has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising two issues but concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Doljeva was advised of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file such a brief.

After reviewing the transcript of Dolje-va’s Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 hearing, we conclude that the district court fully complied with the Rule. Further, we note that there is nothing in the record to suggest that the sentence of imprisonment, as opposed to a term of probation, resulted from collateral, impermissible influences on the district judge. We conclude that the sentence was reasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Finally, after a thorough review of the record in accordance with *An-ders,*we find that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

This court requires counsel to inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal questions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*