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

Exhibit 31.1


Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

I, Karen Law, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Arbutus Resources,
Inc.;

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 the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

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
registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this quarterly  report;

4. I am  responsible  for  establishing  and  maintaining   disclosure  controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange  Act Rules  13a-14  and  15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

         a.  designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures to ensure that
         material  information   relating  to  the  registrant,   including  its
         consolidated  subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those
         entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
         is being prepared;
         b. evaluated the  effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
         and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to  the filing date of
         this quarterly report (the "Evaluation  Date");  and
         c.  presented  in this  quarterly  report  our  conclusions  about  the
         effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures  based on our
         evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

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

         a. all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
         controls  which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
         record,   process,   summarize  and  report  financial  data  and  have
         identified  for the  registrant's  auditors any material  weaknesses in
         internal  controls;  and
         b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
         other employees who have a significant  role in the registrant's
         internal controls; and

6. I have  indicated  in  this  quarterly  report  whether  or  not  there  were
significant  changes  in  internal  controls  or in  other  factors  that  could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation,   including  any  corrective  actions  with  regard  to  significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has executed this  certification as of the
13th day of September, 2006.

/s/  Karen Law
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
#### Hannelore Dreifus, Respondent, v Heimeshe Bakery Corp. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[852 NYS2d 792]

*592“On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 [(a) (7)], the pleading is to be afforded a liberal construction *(see*CPLR 3026). We accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord [the] plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” *(Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). Here, even after according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, we conclude that the sixth cause of action fails to state any cognizable legal ground for the recovery of damages against the defendants Heimeshe Cof, Inc., doing business as Ostrovitsky Bakery, Yair Ostrovitsky, and Jacob Ostrovitsky *(see Widman v Rosenthal,*40 AD3d 749 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the sixth cause of action insofar as asserted against those defendants.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Lifson, J.P, Ritter, Florio and Garni, JJ., concur.
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-70,695]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 27, 2009, in response to a petition filed by the company on behalf of workers of Leggett and Platt, Whittier, California.

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

Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of June 2009.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-15759 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### Ruth Pittman, Respondent, v S. P. Lenox Realty, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[855 NYS2d 182]

*622The plaintiff’s decedent died from severe burns after a halogen lamp ignited liquid that he was using to refinish the floors in an apartment building owned by the defendant S. P. Lenox Realty, LLC (hereinafter Lenox), and managed by the defendant Rubbro Realty Corp. (hereinafter Rubbro), formerly known as R. S. Management, Ltd. (hereinafter RS). The defendant Larry Richards worked as the building superintendent. Lenox, Rubbro, RS, and Richards (hereinafter collectively the defendants), moved for summary judgment on the grounds that they were not liable for the decedent’s injuries and wrongful death because he was an independent contractor, and that they had no notice of any dangerous condition or defect which caused his injuries.

While the defendants met their burden of establishing, prima facie, their entitlement to summary judgment *(see Giuffrida v Citibank Corp.,*100 NY2d 72, 81 [2003]; *Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs.,*46 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1979]; *Chiarini v County of Ulster,*9 AD3d 769 [2004]), the plaintiffs opposition papers, particularly the affidavit of Dora Edwards, raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants created the condition complained of by providing a dangerous, defective, or unsteady halogen lamp that ignited the fire *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the content of the Edwards affidavit is admissible under the declaration against interest exception to the hearsay rule *(see Nucci v Proper,*95 NY2d 597, 602 [2001]) and, upon admission, the plaintiffs evidence overall is subject to the lesser standard of proof afforded under the doctrine enunciated in *Noseworthy v City of New York*(298 NY 76, 80 [1948]). Furthermore, as to the independent contractor defense, the facts alleged in the Edwards’ affidavit raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants exercised any control over the means and methods of the work performed *(see Chainani v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*87 NY2d 370, 380-381 [1995]; *Willis v City of New York,*266 AD2d 208, 208-209 [1999]; *Melbourne v New York Life Ins. Co.,*271 AD2d 296, 297 [2000]).

The defendants’ contention that the Edwards’ affidavit should not be considered because Edwards was not disclosed as a wit*623ness prior to the filing of the note of issue is raised for the first time on appeal and is thus not properly before this Court *(see Lawler v City of Yonkers,*45 AD3d 813 [2007]).

The defendants’ remaining contentions either have been rendered academic by this determination or are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Miller, Dillon and Belen, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

November 9, 2012 

LETTER ORDER 

Re: J.M., et al. v. Township of Irvington, et al.

 Civil Action No. 11-cv-00278 (ES) 

Dear Counsel: 

Pending before this Court is Plaintiffs J.M., a minor, by her guardian, T.M.’s 

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion for Default Judgment. (D.E. No. 39). 

Local Civil Rule 7.1 provides that “[n]o application will be heard unless the 

moving papers and a brief, prepared in accordance with L.Civ.R. 7.2 . . . are filed with 

the Clerk . . . .” L.Civ.R. 7.1(d)(1) (emphasis added). Local Civil Rule 7.1 further states 

that “[i]n lieu of filing any brief . . . a party may file a statement that no brief is necessary 

and the reasons therefor.” L.Civ.R. 7.1(d)(4). Plaintiffs, however, have failed to file 

either a brief or a statement that no brief is necessary. (See D.E. No. 39). Plaintiffs’ 

default judgment motion is therefore improper under the Local Civil Rules. See 

Developers Sur. & Indemnity, Co., v. NDK Gen. Contractors, Inc., No. 06-0086, 2007 

WL 542381, at *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2007) (“Because Plaintiff’s application [for default 

judgment] does not meet the requirements of Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), the Court will 

not hear Plaintiff’s application.”). 

Plaintiffs’ motion is therefore denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs may refile a 

default judgment motion, in compliance with this Court’s Local Civil Rules, within thirty 

(30) days of this order. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 

s/Esther Salas 

 Esther Salas, U.S.D.J. 

CHAMBERS OF 

ESTHER SALAS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

MARTIN LUTHER KING 

COURTHOUSE 

50 WALNUT ST. 

ROOM 5076 

NEWARK, NJ 07101 

973-297-4887 

Case 2:11-cv-00278-MCA-MAH Document 49 Filed 11/09/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 292
NO. 07-07-0137-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	SEPTEMBER 25, 2007

			______________________________

	CAPITOL INDEMNITY CORPORATION, APPELLANT

	V.

	RONZANI INC., D/B/A RONPARCO, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 96TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY;

	NO. 96-214309-05; HONORABLE JEFF WALKER, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	ON MOTION TO DISMISS

	Capital Indemnity Corporation, appellant, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal because it has reached a resolution of the present controversy with Ronzani, Inc, appellees.  No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).   Because the parties have agreed that each shall be responsible for their own appellate costs, costs of this appeal shall be borne by the party that incurred them.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 6.6.  No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

							Mackey K. Hancock

							          Justice
EXHIBIT 23(b)




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Form
S-8, Nos. 33-17196, 33-44822, 33-44877, 33-44876, 33-22459, 33-38491,
33-54075, 33-54079, 33-54077, 333-47833, 333-28273 and Form S-3, No.
33-36001) pertaining to various stock option and employee savings plans of
Wellman, Inc. of our report dated 28 January 1999, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Wellman International Limited and
Subsidiaries at 31 December 1998 and 1997 and for each of the three years in
the period ended 31 December 1998, included in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) of Wellman, Inc.






KPMG
Chartered Accountants
Registered Auditors



Dublin, Ireland

26 March 1999
v, ORDER

MAXCIME CAGAN, ALLOWING COUNSEL TO

WITHDRAW

Defendant.

THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court on the motion of Thomas Ambrosio,

appointed trial counsel for defendant Maxcime Cagan (Thomas Ambrosio, Esq. appearing); andupon consideration of the certification of Thomas Ambrosio, Esq. and for good cause shown:

IT IS on this day of October. 2012,ORDERED as follows:

As a result of the breakdown ofthe attorney-client relationship between the defendant,

Maxcime Cagan and his appointed attorney, Thomas Ambrosio, Esq. , effective immediately

Thomas Ambrosio is relieved as counsel for Maxcime Cagan.

It is further ordered that since Maxcime Cagan has no source of income nor any financial

assets, substitute appellate counsel shall be appointed pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act.

United States District Judge
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1


                               THIRD AMENDMENT TO
                            GROUP 1 AUTOMOTIVE, INC.
                            1996 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

         WHEREAS, GROUP 1 AUTOMOTIVE, INC. (the "Company") has heretofore
adopted the GROUP 1 AUTOMOTIVE, INC. 1996 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN (the "Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows:

         1. The second sentence of Paragraph V(a) of the Plan shall be deleted
and replaced with the following:

                  "Subject to adjustment in the same manner as provided in
                  Paragraph IX with respect to shares of Common Stock subject to
                  Options then outstanding, the aggregate number of shares of
                  Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan shall not
                  exceed 4,500,000 shares."

         2. This amendment to the Plan set forth in paragraph 1 hereof shall be
effective as of May 24, 2000, provided that this amendment to the Plan is
approved by the stockholders of the Company at the 2000 annual meeting of the
Company's stockholders.

         3. As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.
EX-32.1 
·   Section 1350 Certifications




GENEMEN INC.





Pursuant
to Section  18U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Pursuant  to  section  906  of  the   Sarbanes-Oxley   Act  of  2002
(subsection  (a) and (b)
of  section  1350,  chapter 63 of title 18,
United  States  Code),  each of
the  undersigned  officers  of Genemen
Inc.,  a Nevada  corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify that:





The
Quarterly  Report of Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended  November 30, 2009  (the  "Form  10-Q")  of  the  Company   fully   complies   with  the
requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the  Securities  Exchange  Act of
1934  and  information  contained  in
the  Form  10-Q  fairly presents,  in
all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.








Date:
January 14, 2010





/s/ Qiaozhen
Chen


Qiaozhen
Chen


Principal
Executive Officer


and
Principal Financial Officer
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [L14200000.BJ0000-LLNM915000-2009] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of withdrawal of filing of Plat of Survey. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The plat of survey described below was scheduled to be officially filed in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Santa Fe,  New Mexico, 30 calendar days from the date of the publication in the                         **Federal Register**                        , Volume 72, No. 133, dated July 12, 2007, per BLM Manual 2097, Opening Orders.                     

The filing was stayed pending the outcome of a protest and appeal of the survey. The dependent resurvey has been remanded back to BLM and will not be officially filed. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## New Mexico Principal Meridian, New Mexico 

The plat of survey being readdressed represents the dependent resurvey and survey for Townships 9 and 10 North, Range 4 East, New Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted  June 20, 2007, for Group 1062 NM. 

Robert A. Casias, 

Chief Cadastral Surveyor.

 [FR Doc. E9-1612 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
S04Y2115.

#### IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY CHARLES BRUNEIO.

(608 SE2d 224)

Per curiam.

This matter is before the Court on the Notice of Discipline filed by the State Bar against Respondent Anthony Charles Bruneio alleging a violation of Rule 9.4 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, see Bar Rule 4-102 (d). As Bruneio admitted in his response to the grievance filed by the Georgia State Bar that he had been disbarred in the State of Pennsylvania in 2002, the State Bar sent him a Notice of Investigation under Rule 9.4. Bruneio did not respond to the Notice of Investigation, nor did he respond to the subsequently filed Notice of Discipline, which was properly served under Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (i), as he is required to do under Bar Rule 4-208.3. Accordingly, Bruneio is in default, has no right to an evidentiary *893hearing, and is subject to discipline by this Court, see Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b). Because Bruneio was disbarred in Pennsylvania, the State Bar recommends that he also be disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Georgia. We agree that disbarment is the appropriate discipline in this matter. Therefore, the name of Anthony Charles Bruneio hereby is withdrawn from the rolls of attorneys authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Decided January 24, 2005.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Elizabeth M. Williamson, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Disbarred.*

*All the Justices concur.*
# Table 1

http://www.bls.gov/respondents/cex

# image1.png

# image2.png

# image3.png
ORDER

(CLOSED)

U.C. MEDICAL DEPT,

Defendant.

The Court having considered Plaintiff’s application to proceed

in forma pauperis and file the complaint without prepayment of fees

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915; and the Court having screened the

complaint to determine whether dismissal is warranted pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) and 1915A; and for the reasons set forth inthe opinion filed herewith—

It is on this 

day of74 2011,

ORDERED that Plaintiff may proceed forma pauperis without

prepayment of the $350.00 filing fee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a) and (b); and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to file the

complaint in the above—captioned action; and it is further

ORDEF.ED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(b), the C1.erk shall

se.rve a copy cf th.is Order by regular mail on the Attorney General

of the State of New Jersey and on the Warden of the Union County

Jail in Elizabeth, New Jersey, where plaintiff is presentlyconfined; and it is further
ORDERED that in each month that the amount in Plaintiff’s

account exceeds $10.00, until the $350.00 filing fee is paid, theagency having custody of the plaintiff shall assess, deduct from

plaintiff’s account, and forward to the Clerk of the Court payment

equal to 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to

Plaintiff’s account, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) (2), and each

payment shall reference the civil docket number of this action; and

it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed,

without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B) (ii) and

l9l5A(b) (1), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted; within 30 days from the date this order is entered,

Plaintiff may move to reopen his case, attaching to any such motion

a proposed amended complaint which addresses the deficiencies ofthe complaint as stated in the opinion accompanying this order; and

it is finally

ORDERED that t1.e Clerk of the Court sha.ll c.lose this case.

LER

United States District Judge
Exhibit 21.1



List of Subsidiaries



|                                                                          |  |                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Name/Location                                                             |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Stratex Networks (UK) Limited, Lanarkshire, Scotland                      |  | State of Delaware, USA       
|                                                                          | 
|Stratex Networks Mexico, S.A. de C.V., Mexico D.F., Mexico                |  | Mexico City, Mexico          
|                                                                          | 
|Stratex Networks do Brasil Ltda., Sao Paulo, Brazil                       |  | Rio de Janeiro, Brazil       
|                                                                          | 
|Stratex Networks (Philippines), Inc., Makati City, Philippines            |  | Metro Manila, Philippines    
|                                                                          | 
|Stratex Networks (India) Private Limited, New Delhi, India                |  | New Delhi, India             
|                                                                          | 
|Stratex Networks (NZ) Limited, Wellington, New Zealand                    |  | Wellington, New Zealand      
|                                                                          | 
|DMC Stratex Networks (Africa)(Proprietary) Limited, Midrand, South Africa |  | Republic of South Africa     
|                                                                          | 
|Stratex Networks (S) Pte. Ltd., Singapore                                 |  | Republic of Singapore        
|                                                                          | 
|Stratex Networks Polska Spolka z.o.o., Warsaw, Poland                     |  | Warsaw, Poland               
|                                                                          | 
|Stratex Networks (Thailand) Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand                       |  | Bangkok, Thailand