alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31(e)

CERTIFICATIONS

 
I, Joseph F. Domino, certify that:  
1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Entergy Gulf States, Inc.;  
2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  
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 officers 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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)  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;   
c) 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   
d) 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and  
5.
The registrant's other certifying officers 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 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 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.

 

		/s/ Joseph F. Domino
#### In the Matter of Kenny I., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 325]

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Kenny I. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Bogacz, J„), dated February 14, 2013, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated November 29, 2012, made after a hearing, finding that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal sexual act in the first degree (two counts), adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent and placed *829him on probation for a period of 18 months. The appeal brings up for review the fact-finding order dated November 29, 2012.

Ordered that the order of disposition is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency *(see Matter of David H.,*69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]; *Matter of Starsha R.,*96 AD3d 952, 952 [2012]; *Matter of Ashley P.,*74 AD3d 1075, 1075-1076 [2010]; *Matter of Eddie J.,*68 AD3d 870, 870 [2009]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the appellant committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crime of criminal sexual act in the first degree (two counts) *(see*Penal Law § 130.50 [3]; *Matter of Travis*A., 105 AD3d 1041, 1041-1042 [2013]; *Matter of Eli N.,*67 AD3d 802, 803 [2009]; *Matter of Xavier-Jamaal H.,*51 AD3d 922, 922 [2008]; *Matter of Oliver*C., 48 AD3d 682, 682 [2008]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see Matter of Danielle B.,*94 AD3d 757, 758 *[2012]; Matter of Quamel D.,*78 AD3d 1050, 1051-1052 [2010]; *cf.*CPL 470.15 [5]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the trier of fact to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see Matter of Danielle B.,*94 AD3d at 758; *Matter of Kalexis R.,*85 AD3d 927, 928-929 [2011]; *Matter of Macye Mc.,*82 AD3d 892, 894 [2011]; *Matter of Darnell C.,*66 AD3d 771, 772 [2009]; *cf. People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s fact-finding determination was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*Family Ct Act § 342.2 [2]; Penal Law § 130.50 [3]; *Matter of Travis A.,*105 AD3d at 1042; *Matter of Eli N.,*67 AD3d at 803; *Matter of Xavier-Jamaal H.,*51 AD3d at 922; *Matter of Oliver C.,*48 AD3d at 682; *cf. People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Skelos, J.B, Dickerson, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6286

FREDERICK SMITH, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-99-511-2)

Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 6, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frederick Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked “filed” on

February 3, 2000, the district court’s records show it was entered

on the docket sheet on February 4, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and

79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date the

order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective

date of the district court’s decision. Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d

1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Frederick Smith, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See Smith v. Angelone, No. CA-99-511-2 (E.D.

Va. Feb. 4, 2000).* We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
No. 4922.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. RUFUS G. BUSH.

Bightor & Dupre for plaintiff and appellee.

A. B. Leopold for defendant and appellant.

DUFOÜB, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the State of Louisiana condemning defendant to pay a license.

Appellant urges that the judgment must be reversed because the record contains no evidence nor note of evidence and the certificate of the Clerk declaring that the record includes “all the pleadings, evidence and documents” in the cause.

He cites in support of his view Harrison vs. Soulabere, 52 An. 707, and Mackin vs. Wild, 106 La. 1.

We shall not attempt to reconcile the suggested conflict between those cases and the long list of adjudications cited in Harrison vs. Creditors, 43 An. 91, to the effect that where no note of evidence appears in the record, the Court will presume that the Judge proceeded on sufficient evidence.

*92December 13, 1909.

The claim of the State is presented, as the law permits,, by a rule sworn to by the tax collector’s attorney and stating “that he has good reason to believe that the allegations of the above rule are true.” Section 3 of Act 148 of 1900 provides that in all proceedings brought by the State for licenses, “the burden of proof on all questions of fact shall be upon the defendant but only as to those facts which the tax collector, his deputy or attorney shall swear are, to the best of his knowledge or belief, true.”

This was evidently intended to facilitate collections and to lighten the task of .the officer.

it is our view that the rule and affidavit together form the basis of the proceeding and constitute one document partaking of the nature of both pleadings and evidence.

Under the circumstances, it need not be specially offered. It makes, on its face, prima facie proof and transfers the onus prebindi to the tax payer.

He has not discharged his obligation.

Judgment affirmed.
EX-10.1




 Exhibit 10.1 
  

 
 



 
 August 12, 2022 

Mr. David Kretschmer 
 7238 Shagbark lane 

College Grove, TN 37046 
 Dear David: 

This letter confirms our offer to you for the position of Interim Chief Financial Officer of Akumin Inc. (the “Company”} and its affiliates. Your
annual base salary will be $450,000 per year, paid bi-weekly by Akumin Corp. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company). In this position, you will report directly to Riadh Zine, the Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer. Your anticipated start date is August 12, 2022. 
 You will be eligible to participate in the cash Management Incentive Plan (MIP)
of the Company. The incentive target bonus will be commensurate with other senior management level MIP targets payable as defined under the provisions of the plan and applicable terms and conditions. Incentive targets and criteria are subject to
change in accordance with Company policy. Please note that your MIP payment for 2022 will be prorated. For your information, the MIP for 2021 had an incentive target bonus equal to 75% of salary for the current Chief Financial Officer. 

In addition, you will be eligible to receive Long Term Incentive Plan (LTIP) grants which would be consistent with other senior management at your level.
Please note that the LTIP is expected to be granted by way of Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) in Akumin Inc., the publicly traded entity. Annual grants are subject to discretion of the Board. 

You are also eligible for all company benefits, subject to the terms and conditions of each program. You will be required to execute the Company’s
standard Confidentiality & Non-Solicitation Agreement as a condition to commencement of employment. 

Either you or the Company may end the employment relationship at any time, with or without cause or advance notice. The Company is an at-will employer; therefore, this letter does not constitute an employment contract. 
 If you agree with the terms in
this letter, please accept this offer electronically by no later than 5 pm (EST) on August 12, 2022. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (416) 566-3881. 

David, I am very excited to invite you to join us here at Akumin. As you know, our team members are talented, highly motivated professionals. We are committed
to being a patient-centric and a premier hospital partner organization. 
 I look forward to receiving your acceptance and welcoming you as a member of the
Akumin Team! 











 Warmest regards, 
  

 
 



 
 Riadh Zine 
 Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer 
 Akumin Inc. 
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: I
accept the offer of the position of Interim Chief Financial Officer. 
  

							
	 




  
	 		  	 8/12/22
	  	
	David Kretschmer	 		  	Date
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,802]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 15, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers of UGN, Inc., Jackson, Tennessee.

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of May 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-13904 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### DOMAN v. ISTHMIAN S. S. CO.

Civ. No. 3882.

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Aug. 8, 1945.

*610Freedman, Landy & Lorry, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Krusen, Evans and Shaw, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

First(f). The exception is overruled. Of course, it would have been proper to make this request the subject of a motion to produce, but there is no reason why the Court may not treat it as though it had been such a motion. The defendant may answer it by either attaching a photostatic copy of the articles to its answers or by producing the original of the articles and permitting the plaintiff to make a copy.

Second. The exception is sustained. The purpose of interrogatories is to elicit information. How this interrogatory, even if the facts involved are relevant, can add anything to what the plaintiff himself knows is not apparent.

Third. The exception is overruled. The interrogatory will be answered by stating the nature of the alarms given the crew and the procedure to be followed by them in connection with the various alarms and drills mentioned.

Seventh. The exception is sustained.

Twelfth. The exception is overruled.

Twenty-First. The exception is sustained insofar as it asks whether any request or statement of dissatisfaction, criticism or otherwise was made by the plaintiff. As to the balance of the interrogatory the defendant will state whether any member of the merchant crew or gun crew brought to the attention of the Second Mate, Master or any other officer, facts material to the plaintiff’s physical condition and the progress of recovery; and the defendant will state what efforts, if any, were made to secure a doctor.

Twenty-Second. The exception is overruled with the qualification that the defendant need ohly state whether or not there was any reason which prevented the removal of the plaintiff from the vessel to the shore at Gibraltar. The defendant will answer Subsections a, b, and c.

Twenty-Fifth. The exception is overruled as to the first clause ending with the word “Egypt.” As to the balance, the exception is sustained.

Twenty-Eighth. The exception is sustained.

Thirty-Second. The exception is overruled.

*611Thirty-Third. The exception is overruled.

Thirty-Fourth. The exception is overruled, except that the defendant need not admit that it “took possession” of the vessel.
[989 NE2d 560, 967 NYS2d 322]

#### Robert Bloomer, Appellant, v Christine M. Shauger, Respondent.

Argued March 21, 2013;

decided May 2, 2013

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Rusk, Wadlin, Heppner & Martuscello, L.L.P.,*Kingston *(John G. Rusk*of counsel), for appellant.

*Law Offices of Theresa J. Puleo,*Syracuse *(P. David Twichell*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs and the certified question not answered on the ground that it is unnecessary.

*918Plaintiffs hand was injured because, while plaintiff was holding the halter of defendant’s horse, the horse jerked her head back. According to plaintiff, the horse was reacting to an attempt by defendant to put a lead line on the horse.

Under the rule of *Bard v Jahnke*(6 NY3d 592 [2006]), plaintiff cannot recover in the absence of a showing that defendant had knowledge of the animal’s “vicious propensity” or “propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others” (6 NY3d at 596-597, quoting *Collier v Zambito,*1 NY3d 444, 446 [2004]). No such showing was made here. A tendency to shy away when a person reaches for a horse’s throat or face is, as the record shows, a trait typical of horses. The Appellate Division correctly held that a vicious propensity cannot consist of “behavior that is normal or typical for the particular type of animal in question” *(Bloomer v Shauger,*94 AD3d 1273, 1275 [2012]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Rivera concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered on the ground that it is unnecessary, in a memorandum.
#### Kaufmann’s Carousel, Inc., Appellant, v Carousel Center Company LP et al., Respondents. (And Other Actions.)

Submitted May 14, 2012;

decided June 27, 2012

*939Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*18 NY3d 975 (2012)].
Exhibit 32.1

                          18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


    In connection with the AnnualReport of Atlas Mining Company on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, William T. Jacobson, Chief
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

    1. The Report 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ William T. Jacobson                March 25, 2005
------------------------------------
William T. Jacobson
Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 21

                           BALDOR ELECTRIC COMPANY AND AFFILIATES
                                AFFILIATES OF THE REGISTRANT


                               PLACE OF ORGANIZATION              NATURE OF
NAME OF AFFILIATE                 OR INCORPORATION                OWNERSHIP
-----------------              ---------------------              ---------

Baldor of Arkansas                     Arkansas                      100%

Baldor of Nevada, Inc.                 Nevada                        100%

BEC Business Trust                     Massachusetts                 100% (1)

Baldor of Texas, L.P                   Texas                         100% (2)

Baldor International, Inc.             U.S.Virgin Islands            100%

Carolina Capacitors, Inc.              South Carolina                100%   

Southwestern Die Casting Co.,Inc.      Arkansas                      100%

Sweo Controls, Inc.                    Washington                    100%

Baldor Holdings, Inc.                  Delaware                      100%

Baldor de Mexico,S.A.de C.V.           Mexico                        100% (3)
                                                  
Baldor ASR, AG                         Switzerland                   100% (3)
                                                  
Baldor ASR GmbH fuer Antriebstechnik   Germany                       100% (3)
                                                                              
Baldor ASR U.K. Limited                United Kingdom                100% (3)

Baldor Italia S.R.L.                   Italy                         100% (4)
                                                  
Australian Baldor Pty. Limited         Australia                      60%

Baldor Electric (Far East) PTE. Ltd.   Singapore                      60%

Baldor Electric (Thailand) Ltd.        Thailand                      100% (5)

Baldor Industrial Automation PTE.Ltd.  Singapore                     100% (5)

Baldor Electric (Indonesia) Ltd.       Indonesia                     100% (5)

(1)  100% owned by Baldor of Nevada
(2)   99% owned by BEC Business Trust (LP) and 1% owned by Baldor of        
      Arkansas (GP)
(3)  100% owned by Baldor Holdings, Inc.
(4)   98% owned by Baldor Holdings, Inc., 2% owned by Baldor ASR GmbH fuer
     Antriebstechnik. 
(5)  100% owned by Baldor Electric (Far East) PTE. Ltd.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,379
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      627
<ALLOWANCES>                                        73
<INVENTORY>                                         76
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,069
<PP&E>                                           7,350
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,753
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,157
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,542
<BONDS>                                          8,444
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,720
<PREFERRED>                                        291
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (237)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,157
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,346
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   732
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 627
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,044)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (25)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,019)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,019)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.78)


</TABLE>