alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
      (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 (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
  (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:  May 20, 2009
    /s/ Michael C. KeefeMichael C. KeefePresident, Chief Financial Officer and                General Counsel
(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

ANTHONY THOMAS DIFALCO

Alk

NO. 2023 KW 0850

OCTOBER 23, 2023

In Re: Anthony Thomas Difalco, applying for supervisory

writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. 

Tammany, No. 605037. 

BEFORE: WELCH, HOLDRIDGE, AND WOLFE, JJ. 

WRITDENIED. 

JEW

GH

EW
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2127

BRIAN M. BISHOP,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

7-ELEVEN, INC.; JAMES URBAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-2129

BRIAN M. BISHOP,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JAMES URBAN; 7-ELEVEN INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, 

District Judge. (4:11-cv-00073-RAJ-FBS; 4:11-cv-00133-RAJ-FBS)

Submitted: January 10, 2012 Decided: February 7, 2012

Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian M. Bishop, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Anthony Welter, WELTER 

LAW FIRM, PC, Herndon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Brian M. Bishop seeks 

to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his complaint 

and the district court’s order to show cause. We dismiss the 

appeals for a lack of jurisdiction.

In Appeal No. 11-2127, we dismiss because the notice 

of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty 

days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or 

order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the 

district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil 

case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551

U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on 

the docket on August 9, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed on 

October 14, 2011. Because Bishop failed to file a timely notice 

of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal 

period, we dismiss the appeal. 

In Appeal No. 11-2129, we again dismiss for lack of 

jurisdiction. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over 

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory 

and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-

46 (1949). The order Bishop seeks to appeal is neither a final 
4

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT OF TYCOM LTD. AS OF AND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          91,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  373,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                    47,800
<INVENTORY>                                    129,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,891,500
<PP&E>                                         796,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                 203,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,088,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,200,600
<BONDS>                                        653,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       130,100
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,031,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,088,300
<SALES>                                      2,539,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,539,700
<CGS>                                        1,840,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,840,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                35,700
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                495,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                   182,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            303,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   303,300
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.66


</TABLE>
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 973

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore and make permanent 

the exclusion from gross income for amounts received under qualified 

group legal services plans and to increase the maximum amount of 

the exclusion. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2003

Mr. CAMP (for himself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. MATSUI, 

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. 

DELAHUNT, Mr. WYNN, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. MCNULTY, and Mr. 

EHLERS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore 

and make permanent the exclusion from gross income 

for amounts received under qualified group legal services 

plans and to increase the maximum amount of the exclusion.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 973 IH 

1 SECTION 1. EXCLUSION FOR AMOUNTS RECEIVED UNDER 

2 QUALIFIED GROUP LEGAL SERVICES PLANS 

3 RESTORED AND MADE PERMANENT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (e) of section 120 of 

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read 

6 as follows: 

7 ‘‘(e) APPLICATION OF SECTION.—This section and 

8 section 501(c)(20) shall apply to taxable years begin9 ning.—

10 ‘‘(1) after December 31, 1976, and before July 

11 1, 1992, and 

12 ‘‘(2) after December 31, 2003.’’

13 (b) INCREASE IN MAXIMUM EXCLUSION.—The last 

14 sentence of section 120(a) of such Code is amended by 

15 striking ‘‘$70’’ and inserting ‘‘$150’’. 

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

17 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

18 December 31, 2003.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000106413
<NAME> WESTINGHOUSE
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             213
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,584
<ALLOWANCES>                                        39
<INVENTORY>                                        867
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,306
<PP&E>                                           3,653
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,626
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,752
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,933
<BONDS>                                          7,226
<COMMON>                                           426
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                4
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,078
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,752
<SALES>                                          6,296
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,296
<CGS>                                            4,480
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,480
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,772
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 233
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (40)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (7)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (44)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      59
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        15
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,834
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  7,960,279
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,962,113
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,962,113
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          157,924
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,804,189
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,962,113
<SALES>                                            237
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   237
<CGS>                                              100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    137
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       137
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### John R. Consedine, Respondent, v Portville Central School District et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[852 NYS2d *1290892]

Present-Hurlbutt, J.E, Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

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 WJ Communications, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R. Gregory Miller, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



A
signed original of this written certification required by Section 1350 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|/s/R. GREGORY MILLERR. Gregory Miller Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)March 28, 2008 |  |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | 

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 170 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 170

Recognizing the 40th anniversary of the sinking of the U.S.S. Thresher.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 2, 2003

Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire (for himself and Mr. Allen) submitted the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing the 40th anniversary of the sinking of the U.S.S. Thresher.

Whereas the U.S.S. Thresher was first launched at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard on 
        July 9, 1960;
Whereas, with a crew of 16 officers, 96 sailors, and 17 civilians, the U.S.S. 
        Thresher departed Portsmouth Naval Shipyard for her final voyage on 
        April 9, 1963;
Whereas the military and civilian mix of the U.S.S. Thresher crew reflects the 
        unity of the naval submarine service in the protection of the United 
        States;
Whereas at approximately 7:47 a.m. on April 10, 1963, while in communication 
        with the surface ship U.S.S. Skylark, and approximately 300 miles off 
        the coast of New England, the U.S.S. Thresher began her final descent;
Whereas, on April 10, 1963, the U.S.S. Thresher was declared lost with all 
        hands;
Whereas the loss of the U.S.S. Thresher gave rise to the SUBSAFE program, which 
        has kept United States' submariners safe at sea as the strongest and 
        safest submarine force in history;
Whereas the loss of the U.S.S. Thresher gave rise to an ocean engineering 
        curricula in institutions of higher education that has enabled and 
        sustained the United States' preeminence in submarine warfare; and
Whereas the crew of the U.S.S. Thresher demonstrated the ``last full measure of 
        devotion'' in service to the United States, and this devotion 
        characterizes the sacrifices of all submariners, past and present: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the 40th anniversary of the sinking of the 
        U.S.S. Thresher;
            (2) remembers with profound sorrow the loss on April 10, 
        1963, of the U.S.S. Thresher and her gallant crew of sailors 
        and civilians;
            (3) expresses its deepest gratitude to all submariners on 
        ``eternal patrol'', who are forever bound together by their 
        dedicated and honorable service to the United States; and
            (4) requests the Clerk of the House of Representatives to 
        transmit a copy of this resolution to the Chief of Naval 
        Operations and to the Commanding Officer of the Portsmouth 
        Naval Shipyard to be accepted on behalf of the families and 
        shipmates of the crew of the U.S.S. Thresher.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Lee FRANKLIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-50505.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 12, 2012.

Filed Dec. 18, 2012.

Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Michael Dore, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Davina T. Chen, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Patricia Ann Young, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: PREGERSON and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL, Senior District Judge.*

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Terry Franklin appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss for post-indictment dely, the district court’s denial of his suppression motion, and his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). We affirm the district court on all three matters.

Franklin’s motion to dismiss was based on the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. In this case, the length and reasons for delay do not excuse Franklin from showing actual, non-speculative prejudice. *See United States v. Beamon,*992 F.2d 1009, 1014 (9th Cir.1993) (“[W]e must consider the amount of delay in relation to particularized prejudice.”). Franklin cannot show that his trial’s delay caused him such prejudice. As a result, the delay between Franklin’s indictment, arrest, and trial did not violate his Sixth Amendment speedy-trial rights. We affirm the district court’s denial of Franklin’s motion to dismiss.

We also affirm the district court’s denial of Franklin’s suppression motion. We find that the circumstances created reasonable suspicion for an “investigatory stop,” or *Terry*stop, of Franklin. *See Hiibel v.*
      *630
      *Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.,*542 U.S. 177, 185, 124 S.Ct. 2451, 159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004). The accompanying frisk was appropriate under the circumstances.

Finally, for the reasons enumerated by the district court, we affirm Franklin’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). *United States v. Franklin,*CR 07-967 PSG, 2011 WL 3424448 (C.D.Cal. Aug.5, 2011).

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
CHURCHILL TAX-FREE FUND OF KENTUCKY
                          Supplement to the Prospectus
                      For Class A Shares and Class C Shares
                                and the Statement
                            of Additional Information
                              Dated April 24, 2004


     Effective July 1, 2004, the Fund will no longer permit purchase of Class A
Shares without sales charge from the proceeds of the redemption of shares in
another investment company.

     The following material in the Prospectus describing such purchases under
the section "Alternative Purchase Plans," beginning on page 15, is deleted
effective July 1, 2004:

     o    Sub-paragraph (iii) under "Sales Charges for Purchases of $1 Million
          or More;" and,

     o    The entire "Certain Investment Companies" sub-section.

     The material in the Statement of Additional Information under the section
entitled "Purchase, Redemption, and Pricing of Shares," beginning on page 33, is
changed as follows effective July 1, 2004:

     o    Subparagraph (iii) under the caption "Sales Charges for Purchases of
          $1 Million or More of Class A Shares" is deleted;

     o    The final paragraph under "Sales Charges for Purchases of $1 Million
          or More of Class A Shares" shall read as follows: "CDSC Class A Shares
          do not include Class A Shares purchased without a sales charge as
          described under "General" below."; and,

     o    The captions entitled "Certain Investment Companies" and "Special
          Dealer Arrangements" are deleted in entirety.


                   The date of this supplement is May 19, 2004
SCWC-13-0000002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

REED W. SAILOLA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-13-0000002; CASE NO. 1DTA-11-03671)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Reed W. Sailola’s

application for writ of certiorari filed on August 29, 2015, is

hereby accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no oral argument will be

heard in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant

to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move

for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 30, 2015.

Jonathan E. Burge

for petitioner /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-13-0000002

30-SEP-2015

01:12 PM
**EXHIBIT 10.19**

 

**Shopping.com Ltd.**

**Compensation of Directors**

 

The members of theboard of directors (the ***“Board”***) of Shopping.com Ltd. (“***Shopping.com”)***are entitled to reimbursement for travel, lodging and other reasonable expenses incurred in attending meetings of the Board andits committees. 

 

On June 6, 2004, Shopping.com’sshareholders (the ***“Shareholders”***) approved a policy for compensation of directors who are not employees of Shopping.com or partners or employees of Shareholders (***“Outside Directors”***). Under thispolicy, each Outside Director receives $50,000 per year, and is granted an option to purchase 30,000 ordinary shares (the ***“Initial Grant”***) upon first being appointed or elected to the Board, and subsequent options to purchase7,500 ordinary shares (***“Subsequent Grants”***) at each annual shareholder meeting after which they continue to serve as a Board member. The Initial Grants vest monthly from the day of grant over a three-year period and theSubsequent Grants vest monthly from the day of grant over a one-year period. Initial Grants and Subsequent Grants will accelerate in full upon a liquidation, dissolution or change in control transaction. Both Initial Grants and Subsequent Grants arepriced at the fair market value of Shopping.com ordinary shares on the date of grant. 

 

Arrangements regarding the compensation of directors, including executive officers who are directors, require approval of the Board’s audit committee, the Board and the Shareholders, in that order.