alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                     MANAGING GENERAL PARTNER CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, EDWARD B. LIPKIN, CERTIFY THAT:

1. I HAVE REVIEWED THIS ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF NATIONAL PROPERTY ANALYSTS
MASTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;

2. BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE, THIS REPORT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY UNTRUE STATEMENT OF A
MATERIAL FACT OR OMIT TO STATE A MATERIAL FACT NECESSARY TO MAKE THE STATEMENTS
MADE, IN LIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH SUCH STATEMENTS WERE MADE, NOT
MISLEADING WITH RESPECT TO THE PERIOD COVERED BY THIS REPORT;

3. BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE, THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND OTHER FINANCIAL
INFORMATION INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT, FAIRLY PRESENT IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS THE
FINANCIAL CONDITION, RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS OF THE REGISTRANT AS
OF, AND FOR, THE PERIODS PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT;

4. THE REGISTRANT'S OTHER CERTIFYING OFFICER(S) AND I ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES (AS DEFINED IN
EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13A-15(E) AND 15D-15(E)) FOR THE REGISTRANT AND HAVE:

(A) DESIGNED SUCH DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES, OR CAUSED SUCH DISCLOSURE
CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES TO BE DESIGNED UNDER OUR SUPERVISION, TO ENSURE THAT
MATERIAL INFORMATION RELATING TO THE REGISTRANT, INCLUDING ITS CONSOLIDATED
SUBSIDIARIES, IS MADE KNOWN TO US BY OTHERS WITHIN THOSE ENTITIES, PARTICULARLY
DURING THE PERIOD IN WHICH THIS REPORT IS BEING PREPARED;

(B) EVALUATED THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE REGISTRANT'S DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND
PROCEDURES AND PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT OUR CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES, AS OF THE END OF THE PERIOD COVERED
BY THIS REPORT BASED ON SUCH EVALUATION; AND

(C) DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT ANY CHANGE IN THE REGISTRANT'S INTERNAL CONTROL
OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING THAT OCCURRED DURING THE REGISTRANT'S MOST RECENT
FISCAL QUARTER (THE REGISTRANT'S FOURTH FISCAL QUARTER IN THE CASE OF AN ANNUAL
REPORT) THAT HAS MATERIALLY AFFECTED, OR IS REASONABLY LIKELY TO 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; AND

(B) ANY FRAUD, WHETHER OR NOT MATERIAL, THAT INVOLVES MANAGEMENT OR OTHER
EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE REGISTRANT'S INTERNAL CONTROL OVER
FINANCIAL REPORTING.

DATE: MARCH 30, 2007


BY: EBL&S, INC., ITS MANAGING GENERAL
    PARTNER


BY: /S/ EDWARD B. LIPKIN
    ---------------------------------
NAME: EDWARD B. LIPKIN
TITLE: PRESIDENT
Exhibit1011cSMG9301410KExecutiveOfficersinExecSeverancePlan






                         
Exhibit 10.11(c)






Executive Officers of
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company
who are parties to form of
Tier 1 Participation Agreement under
The Scotts Company LLC Executive Severance Plan






	
			
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	Effective Date of

	Name and Principal Position
	 
	Tier 1 Participation

	with The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company
	 
	Agreement

	 
	 
	 

	Barry W. Sanders, President and Chief Operating Officer
	 
	November 5, 2011

	 
	 
	 

	Denise S. Stump, Executive Vice President, Global Human Resources and Chief Ethics Officer
	 
	November 5, 2011

	 
	 
	 

	Michael C. Lukemire, Executive Vice President, North American Operations
	 
	April 26, 2012

	 
	 
	 

	Ivan C. Smith, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Corporate Secretary and Chief Compliance Officer
	 
	July 10, 2013

	 
	 
	 

	Thomas Randal Coleman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	 
	April 15, 2014
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric D. Dean, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[861 NYS2d 545]

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William E Kocher, J.), rendered February 20, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and unlawful possession of marihuana.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.41 [1]) and, in appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.39 [1]). County Court informed defendant at the time of the pleas that he would be sentenced to the “maximum” period of postrelease supervision. Although defendant’s pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered because the court failed to inform him prior to the entry of each plea of the period of postrelease supervision that would be imposed at sentencing (see *People v Boyd,*50 AD3d 1578 [2008]), the remedy for the court’s error is vacatur of the pleas *(see id.),*and defendant has expressly stated that he does not wish to be afforded that remedy *(see generally People v Sparber,*10 NY3d 457 [2008]). We reject the contention of defendant that the court’s error renders his waiver of the right to appeal invalid *1309with respect to each appeal *(see generally People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentences is thus encompassed by that valid waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; *People v Dupont,*292 AD2d 872 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 650 [2002]; *People v Wilson,*284 AD2d 959 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 943 [2001]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SRS Labs, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ending March 31, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Thomas C.K. Yuen , Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.             The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.             Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: May 17, 2005 |   |                     |
|-------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                    | By:    | /s/ Thomas C.K.  Yuen    |
|                    |   | Thomas C.K. Yuen         |
|                    |   | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Wilsons The Leather Experts Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended October 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Peter G. Michielutti, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.
S. C. Section 1350, 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, as amended; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. December 9, 2004
    
    /s/ Peter G. MichieluttiPeter G. MichieluttiExecutive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer
and Chief Operating
Officer
(principal financial and
accounting officer)
PATRICE KERR

,

Appellant,

v.

JULIE L. JONES , Secretary,

Department of Corrections

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FIL ED

CASE NO. 1D 13

- 2325

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 16, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County

. Gregory S. Parker , Judge

.

Patrice Kerr, pro se , Appellant.

Beverly Brewster, Department of Corrections, Tallahas see , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY

, MAKAR

, and BILBREY, J J

. , CONCUR.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 47265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21987]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 11, 2017.

PLACE: Closed Commission Hearing Room.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, 
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend 
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the 
matters also may be present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit 
consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: At times, changes in Commission 
priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For 
further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been 
added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the 
Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: October 4, 2017.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21987 Filed 10-6-17; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT LARRY D. WHEATCRAFT, Appellant,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D23-427 February 28, 2024 Appeals from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Michael F. Andrews, Judge. Sara B. Mollo, Public Defender, and W. Randall Harper, Assistant Public Defender, Clearwater, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. VILLANTI, LaROSE, and SMITH, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed April 3, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-00661-CV GREGORIO SANTIZO, Appellant V. ELSY E. SANTIZO, Appellee On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-15526-S 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, and Justices Lang-Miers and Brown Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Appellant’s brief in this cas e is overdue. By postcard da ted January 21, 2014, we notified appellant the time for filing his brie f had expired. We directed appe llant to file both his brief and an extension motion within ten days . We cautioned appellant that failure to file his brief and an
extension motion would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not filed his brief, an extensi on motion, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of his brief. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b)(c).

130661F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
GREGORIO SANTIZO, Appellant
No. 05-13-00661-CV V. ELSY E. SANTIZO, Appellee On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-15526-S. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Brown participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee ELSY E. SANTIZO recove r her costs of this appeal from appellant GREGORIO SANTIZO.
Judgment entered April 3, 2014

/Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
#### Dionne Gorbea et al., Appellants, v Garthe E. DeCohen et al., Respondents.

[987 NYS2d 152]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered April 9, 2013, which, *549after a jury trial, denied plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the jury verdict and for a new trial under CPLR 4404 (a), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied the motion as defective due to plaintiffs’ failure to annex the trial transcript to their motion. Given the nature of the issues raised on this particular motion, the absence of a transcript, or relevant portions thereof, precluded a meaningful review *(see e.g Tesciuba v Cataldo,*189 AD2d 655, 655 [1st Dept 1993]; *Blechman v New York City Tr. Auth.,*2014 NY Slip Op 30716[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2014]; *McCarthy v 390 Tower Assoc., LLC,*9 Misc 3d 219, 221 [Sup Ct, NY County 2005]; *but see Miller v City of New York,*2013 NY Slip Op 30343[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2013]).

In any event, notwithstanding the claimed evidentiary errors, the two competing versions of the accident were clearly before the jury, and whether viewed singly or cumulatively, the errors claimed, if any, were harmless.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Saxe and Feinman, JJ.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk August 6, 2009

s0720 

# Order

August 6, 2009

138133

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138133 COA: 287709 Alcona CC: 02-011054-FC DARYL D. JUSTICE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the January 5, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 16

- 00417

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E .J., J.J., V.J., AND C.J.X., CHILDREN

From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15

- 000408

- CV

- 85

ORDER

On March 24, 2017, appellants filed a motion for an extension of time to file their

pro se response to their appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and supporting Anders

brief. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 ( 1967 ). The

basis of the motion is that certain pretrial hearing s were apparently not transcribed

although they arguably had been designated as part of the record. According to the

motion:

[C ounsel] sent an additional request for these transcriptions by email to Kimberly McCright, President and CEO of Verbatim Reporting and Transcription LLC, on March 17, 2017. She forwarded the request to the trial court judge John Delaney, who initially denied the request on March 19, 2017. Upon being provided with further information about the belief that there is information in the pre

- trial transcripts that is relevant to the appeal, Judge Delaney approved the request on March 21, 2017.In the Interest of E.J., J.J. , V.J., and C.J.X., Children Page 2

Counsel is ordered to provide to this Court, within 7 days from the date of this

or der, the referenced communications with the recorder so that the C ourt may take

appropriate actions to secure the timely transcription and filing of a supplemental record.

Because appellants do not have the complete record for their review, their

response to counsel’s Anders brief is not yet due. The motion for extension of time to file

a response is dismissed without prejudice to file another , if needed, after the

supplemental record has been filed.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins

Motion dismissed

Order issued and filed April 5 , 2017
EX-4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 
  

			
		 	
	                            MOMO INC.	 	
	  
 Number
	 	  

Class A Ordinary Share(s)

-[no. of shares]-

	  
 Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman
Islands
  
 Share capital is US$100,000
divided into
 (i) 800,000,000 Class A Ordinary Shares of a par value of
US$0.0001 each,
 (ii) 100,000,000 Class B Ordinary Shares of a par
value of US$0.0001 each and
 (iii) 100,000,000 Shares of a par value of US$0.0001
each of such class or classes
  
 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT [name of
shareholder] is the registered holder of [no. of shares] Class A Ordinary Share(s) in the above-named Company subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association thereof.

 
 EXECUTED on behalf of the said Company on the
            day of                     2014 by:

 
 DIRECTOR
                                         
                                   










			
	 TRANSFER
	 	
		
	I	 	(the Transferor) for the value received
		
	DO HEREBY transfer to	 	(the Transferee) the
		
		 	shares standing in my name in the

 undertaking called MOMO INC. 

To hold the same unto the Transferee 
 Dated 

Signed by the Transferor 
 in the presence of: 

 

							
	  
	  		  	  
	  	
	Witness	  		  	Transferor
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
the registrant's financial statements as of and for the period ended April 30, 
1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                      1,497,811
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                               7,659,054
<ALLOWANCES>                                  397,000
<INVENTORY>                                   904,546
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           10,344,887 
<PP&E>                                     10,420,400
<DEPRECIATION>                              7,054,632
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             18,296,084
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       8,992,710
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                    2,079,155
<OTHER-SE>                                  6,836,040
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               18,296,084
<SALES>                                    17,921,269 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           36,144,224
<CGS>                                       2,335,583         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              19,032,345 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           16,686,036
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               24,077
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            109,341
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               326,787
<INCOME-TAX>                                  213,469
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           113,318
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                  113,318
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .03
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leopold Williams, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 452]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered March 12, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), and robbery in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*401We find no merit to the defendant’s claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. The record demonstrates that the defendant received meaningful representation from his trial counsel, who presented competent opening and closing statements, and vigorously pursued a mistaken-identification defense through extensive cross-examination of the People’s witnesses which highlighted inconsistencies in their testimony. Thus, viewing the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case as of the time of the representation, we find that the defendant was afforded the effective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Flores,*84 NY2d 184; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137; *see also, People v Aguilar,*224 AD2d 704; *People v DeFina,*213 AD2d 665).

Furthermore, we reject the defendant’s contention that the court erred in sentencing him to consecutive terms of imprisonment for the robbery of three victims and the intentional murder of a fourth victim. Although the defendant’s convictions arose out of a single transaction, the robbery of each victim constituted a separate act, and those acts were separate and distinct from the intentional murder of the fourth victim *(see, People v Turner,*212 AD2d 818; *People v Ruth,*194 AD2d 700; *People v McCloud,*182 AD2d 835, 838). Accordingly, consecutive sentences were permissible *(see, People v Brown,*80 NY2d 361, 364; *People v Braithwaite,*63 NY2d 839).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.