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



Exhibit 31.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
of Periodic Report Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended February 28,
2007 of Kayne Anderson Energy Development Company;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; andc.
    
    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 materially 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 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; andb.
    
    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/ Terry A. Hart

Terry A. HartChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
Case 2:10-cr-00851-CCC Document 143 Filed 11/28/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 771
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derrick Jordan, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 452]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered on or about November 25, 2003, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting *315such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur— Buckley, EJ, Mazzarelli, Marlow, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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 Hutton Investors Futures Fund L.P. II. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jerry Pascucci, President and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|        |                                                                                                                           |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (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 Partnership. |

/s/ Jerry Pascucci                                                        Jerry Pascucci Citigroup Managed Futures LLC President and Director

March 30, 2007                                                            Date

----
2012.12.31 Ex-10.60.3










Exhibit 10.60.3






AMENDMENT TWO
TO THE
COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS SEVERANCE PAY PLAN
FOR EXEMPT EMPLOYEES


WHEREAS, The Coca-Cola Company established the Coca-Cola Refreshments Severance Pay Plan for Exempt Employees (“Plan”); and
WHEREAS, The Coca-Cola Company Benefits Committee (“Benefits Committee”) is authorized to amend the Plan at any time; 
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan is amended to add “Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Company” to Appendix A (Participating Affiliates), effective November 1, 2012.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Benefits Committee has caused this Amendment to be signed by its duly authorized member as of this  6th  day of December 2012.




THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
BENEFITS COMMITTEE


/s/ Sue Fleming                
Sue Fleming
Benefits Committee Chairperson
1 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

2021 Trends in 

Consumer Expenditures

Adam Safir, Program Manager

Consumer Expenditure Surveys Program

BLS OPLC Briefing: Inflation & Consumer Expenditures

September 15, 2022
2 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

2021 Consumer Expenditures

 Average annual expenditures for all consumer units in 2021 were $66,928, a 9.1-

percent increase from 2020

 During the same period, the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) rose 4.7 percent, and 

average income before taxes increased 3.7 percent

 Overall, housing accounted for the highest share (33.8 percent), followed by 

transportation (16.4 percent), food (12.4 percent), and personal insurance and 

pensions (11.8 percent)

 Among the 14 major components of household spending, the largest increase in 

expenditures was in entertainment (+22.7 percent), followed closely by a 22.3-

percent rise in apparel and services spending 
3 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Annual expenditure shares (%) by major components, 2021 
4 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Average Income & Expenditures, 2019-21
5 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Average Income & Expenditures, 2019-21
6 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Percent change in consumer spending on intercity public and other 

transportation, 2019-21
7 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Percent change in consumer spending on local and intracity public and 

other transportation, 2019-21
Contact Information

8 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bls.gov

Adam Safir

Consumer Expenditure Surveys Program

(202) 691-5175 | safir.adam@bls.gov
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

 .

: 

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF : 

PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES : 

DISTRICT COUNCIL 711 HEALTH & : 

WELFARE, VACATION AND : 

FINISHING TRADES INSTITUTE : 

FUNDS, ET AL. : Civil Action No. 11-1023 (ES) 

: 

Plaintiffs, : ORDER

: 

v. : 

: 

VILLAGE GLASS, INC. : 

: 

Defendant. : 

 : 

SALAS, DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter having come before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment 

(Docket Entry No. 13) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), and the Court 

having considered Plaintiffs’ submissions, and it appearing that: 

1. Plaintiffs commenced this cause of action on February 23, 2011. (See Docket Entry 

No. 1). 

2. Service of a copy of the Summons and Complaint was effectuated upon Defendant 

Village Glass, Inc. on July 12, 2011. (See Docket Entry No. 8). 

3. The time for answering the Complaint has expired and Defendant has not been 

granted an extension of time within which to answer and has failed to interpose an 

answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. 

4. Plaintiffs requested the Clerk enter default on January 24, 2012. (See Docket Entry 

No. 11). 

5. The Clerk entered Default on January 26, 2012 against Defendant for having failed to 

plead or otherwise defend this action. (See Docket Entry No. 12). 

Case 2:11-cv-01023-ES-CLW Document 16 Filed 04/17/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 247
6. Plaintiffs have provided Defendant with notice of the motion for default judgment 

and related documentation. (See Docket Entry No. 13). 

7. To date, Defendant has not opposed Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. 

Accordingly, IT IS on this 17th day of April, 2012, 

ORDERED that judgment is hereby entered against Village Glass, Inc. in favor of the 

Plaintiffs in the total amount of $10,494.60 comprised of the following amounts: 

(a) $5,895.65 in contributions, (Docket Entry 13-1, Affidavit in Support of Notice of 

Motion for Default Judgment, “Vitale Aff.,” ¶ 7, Ex. E); 

(b) $1,616.00 in liquidated damages, (Docket Entry 15, Certification of Lark N. Bedrick, 

Esquire, “Bedrick Cert.,” ¶ 3, Vitale Aff., Ex B, Provision(A)(5), (B)(3) and (E)(2)); 

(c) $1,616.00 in penalties plus interest, (Vitale Aff. ¶ 8, Ex. F); 

(d) $1,366.95 in attorney’s fees (Vitale Aff. ¶¶ 13 - 15, Ex. G, Bedrick Cert. ¶ 2); and it is 

further 

ORDERED that the Clerk shall mark this matter closed. 

s/Esther Salas x 

Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:11-cv-01023-ES-CLW Document 16 Filed 04/17/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 248
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Justin Christopher TURNER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-12679

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 28, 2012.

Patricia D. Barksdale, David Rodney Brown, Nicholas Alexander Pilgrim, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jacksonville, FL, Robert E. O’Neill, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gerald S. Bettman, Attorney at Law, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendanh-Appellant.

Before BARKETT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Justin Turner appeals his 120-month sentence, which the district court imposed after he pled guilty to distributing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Turner, who had a prior conviction for selling or delivering cocaine, sold 15.2 grams of cocaine base to a cooperating individual on December 12, 2008, but the district court did not sentence him until March 22, 2011. He now argues that the district court erred by not retroactively applying the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”), under which he would not be subject to a statutory-minimum sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment.

We review *de novo*the application of the law to sentencing issues. *See United States v. Alexander,*609 F.3d 1250, 1253 (11th Cir.2010). Prior to the FSA, a defendant that distributed 5 or more grams of cocaine base was subject to 5 to 40 years’ imprisonment. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) (Aug. 2, 2010). This range was enhanced to 10 years’ to life imprisonment if the defendant committed his offense after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense became final. *Id.*Congress enacted the FSA on August 3, 2010, and changed the crack-to-powder-cocaine ratio from 100-to-l to about 18-to-l. Pub.L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (2010); *See also United States v. Gomes,*621 F.3d 1343, 1346 (11th Cir.2010). The FSA amended § 841(b)’s sentencing provisions, and raised from 5 to 28 grams the amount of cocaine base necessary to trigger the 5-year statutory minimum. *Gomes,*621 F.3d at 1346; *Compare*21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(iii) (Aug. 2, 2010), *with*21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(iii) (2011). Currently, a defendant that distributed less than 28 grams of cocaine base is subject to a statutory-maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, or 30 years’ imprisonment if he committed his offense after a prior *877conviction for a felony drug offense became final. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (2011). Such a defendant is not subject to a statutory-minimum sentence of imprisonment. *Id.*

The U.S. Supreme Court, on June 21, 2012, held that the FSA applies to those defendants who committed their offense prior to the FSA’s enactment, but who were sentenced after the date of its enactment. *Dorsey v. United States,*567 U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2321, 2326, 183 L.Ed.2d 250 (2012). Accordingly, the district court erred by not sentencing Turner pursuant to the FSA’s provisions, and this error was not harmless, requiring that we vacate Turner’s sentence and remand for resen-tencing.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOSE SAN JUAN

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 607

[ August 24, 2017 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Lisa M. Porter , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 11007808 CF10A

.

Fairuze Sofia of The Sofia Law Firm, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, M AY and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit
23




Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm




The Board
of Directors


Medialink
Worldwide Incorporated:




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Nos.
333-27207 and 333-126213) on Form S-8 and in the registration statement (Nos.
333-120956) on Form S-3 of Medialink Worldwide Incorporated of our report dated
April 15, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Medialink
Worldwide Incorporated and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and
cash flows for the years then ended, and the related consolidated financial
statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2008 annual report
on Form 10-K of Medialink Worldwide Incorporated.





Our
report dated April 15, 2009 contains an explanatory paragraph that states that
the Company has suffered recurring losses and negative cash flows from
operations and expects to incur operating losses and negative cash flows from
operations in 2009. The Company’s sole source of capital is its working capital,
which may not be sufficient to fund continuing operating losses and existing
obligations. These factors raise substantial doubt about the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.





/s/ KPMG
LLP


New York,
New York


April 15,
2009
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      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 Quarterly Report of Diet Coffee, Inc., a Delaware
      corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September
      30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof (the “Report”), I, Adam J. Engel, President, Chief Executive Officer,
      Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:




(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 result of operations of the Company.




Date: November
              19, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Adam
              EngelAdam
                J. Engel, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
                and
                Director
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 10, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00444-CR

JUAN L. MORENO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1514867

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Juan L. Moreno appeals his conviction for aggravated assault.

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is 

wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the 

record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
2

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford 

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 

days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in 

the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief 

or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for 

review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Hassan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         15,724,730
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14,135,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                   726,551
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               33,497,176
<PP&E>                                         8,709,471
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,285,301
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 44,363,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          28,370,915
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       6,913
<OTHER-SE>                                     13,418,346
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   44,363,618
<SALES>                                        172,313,838
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               172,313,838
<CGS>                                          158,015,411
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  158,015,411
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             80,676
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,862,674
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,247,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,615,674
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,615,674
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.24




</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES ex rel. RUBIN v. POWELL, Major General.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Jan. 21, 1941.

Moses M. Cohen, of New York City, for petitioner.

John T. Cahill, U. S. Atty., of New York City (William L. Lynch; Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

COXE, District Judge.

It is well settled that writs of habeas corpus issued by the District Court do not run outside of the district. United States ex rel. Belardi v. Day, 3 Cir., 50 F.2d 816; Ex parte Yee Hick Ho, D. C., 33 F.2d 360; New York v. Eno, 155 U.S. 89, 15 S.Ct. 30, 39 L.Ed. 80; Hoeppel v. Street, et al., D. C., 17 F.Supp. 719; In re Boles, 8 Cir., 48 *645F. 75; United States v. Tod, D.C., 291 F. 665.

The writ in this case is, therefore, quashed.
EXHIBIT 10.13

 

SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS

 

Independent non-employee directors of Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. (the “Company”) will receive the following compensation in 2013:

 

An annual retainer fee of $110,000.

 

The committee chairpersons will receive additional annual fees as follows:

 

	
Lead   Independent Director
    	
$50,000
    	
 
    
	
Audit   Committee Chairperson
    	
$30,000
    	
 
    
	
Compensation   Committee Chairperson
    	
$20,000
    	
 
    
	
Nominating &   Governance Committee Chairperson
    	
$15,000
    	
 
    


 

The committee members, other than the chairpersons, will receive additional annual fees as follows:

 

	
Audit   Committee Member
    	
$12,000
    	
 
    
	
Compensation   Committee Member
    	
$  8,000
    	
 
    
	
Nominating &   Governance Committee Member
    	
$  6,000
    	
 
    
	
Pricing   Committee Member
    	
$  6,000
    	
 
    


 

Reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred to attend related meetings.

 

A restricted stock grant of 1,587 shares of common stock on December 31, 2012, under the Company’s Amended and Restated 1997 Stock Award and Incentive Plan.  Such shares vest over a period from December 31, 2012, to March 31, 2016.

 

The Company’s independent non-employee directors may elect to defer all or any portion of the fees above in accordance with the Company’s deferred compensation plan for its directors.

 

Directors who are also employees of the Company will not receive any compensation for their services as directors of the Company.
Case 3:11-cv-00437-MAS-LHG Document 34 Filed 05/10/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 154
Case 3:11-cv-00437-MAS-LHG Document 34 Filed 05/10/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 155
Case 3:11-cv-00437-MAS-LHG Document 34 Filed 05/10/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 156
Case 3:11-cv-00437-MAS-LHG Document 34 Filed 05/10/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 157
Case 2:10-cr-00435-JLL Document 13 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 22
Case 2:10-cr-00435-JLL Document 13 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 23
Case 2:10-cr-00435-JLL Document 13 Filed 07/29/10 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 24