alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31 CERTIFICATIONS I, Kjell I. Jagelid, hereby certify that: (1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the report) of Simex Technologies, Inc.; (2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; (4) The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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) [Omitted] (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and (5) The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.  Dated: November 26, 2007/s/ Kjell I. JagelidKjell I. Jagelid
#### MTA BUS NON-UNION EMPLOYEES, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MTA NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT, Defendant. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, MTA Bus Company, Defendants-Appellees.*

No. 12-4198-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Oct. 8, 2013.

John A. Cirando (Bradley E. Keem, Elizabeth dev. Moeller, on the brief) Dealy Silberstein & Braverman, LLP, Syracuse, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Helen Fromm (Mary Fisher Bernet, Peter Sistrom, on the brief) Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New York, NY, for Defendant.

PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., PIERRE N. LEVAL, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

*

 We direct the Clerk of the Court to amend the official caption as noted.

SUMMARY ORDER

In this appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Rakoff, *J.),*we conclude, first, that the court was within its discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Appellants’ state law claims.

*13We also affirm the District Court’s grant of judgment to the defendants on Appellants’ state law claims based on their Offer Letter and pension plan. Appellants argue that when the MTA granted increases in contributions and benefits to the workers covered by its collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with the Transport Workers Union of America, Local 100 (“Local 100”), it was compelled by the terms of Article 16 of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Defined Benefits Plan (the “Plan”) to grant them corresponding increases in both contributions and benefits. Construing the Plan as denying any linkage between Appellants’ benefits and benefits accorded under Local 100’s CBA would leave the MTA free, almost at will, to wipe out the economic value to Appellants of their Plan. Simply by agreeing with Local 100 to an economically neutral increase in both contributions and benefits, the MTA could then impose on Appellants increased contributions, without corresponding increased benefits.

But that is not the case here. After the Impasse Award raised Local 100’s contributions and benefits, the MTA did not increase Appellants’ contributions without a corresponding increase to benefits. To the contrary, the MTA left Appellants’ contributions and benefits unchanged, waiving its right to impose increased contributions. Therefore, even if Appellants are correct that the Plan prohibits the MTA from raising contributions in line with Local 100’s CBA without a corresponding change to benefits, the Plan does not compel defendants to increase Appellants’ benefits having foregone any increase to contributions.

We affirm the judgment of the District Court.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50804 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LINDA GANN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-95-CR-352-5

- - - - - - - - - - April 16, 1997 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *Linda Gann pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting a wirefraud conspiracy. Gann waived the right to appeal her sentence unless she received an upward departure or the issue related to ineffective assistance of counsel. Gann contends that the district court deprived her of the effective assistance of counsel by denying her motion for funds to secure the testimony of a court-appointed psychologist at her sentencing hearing.No. 96-50804 - 2 - Even if it is presumed that Gann has raised an ineffectiveness claim, she has failed to demonstrate the prejudice necessary to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984); see Lincecum v. Collins , 958 F.2d 1271, 1279-80 (5th Cir. 1992) (speculative allegations of prejudice do not establish ineffective assistance of counsel). Accordingly, Gann’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Applicants – April 28, 2016","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"QriZGuJJBq\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-april-28-2016\/\">Applicants – April 28, 2016<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-april-28-2016\/embed\/#?secret=QriZGuJJBq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants – April 28, 2016” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"QriZGuJJBq\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Document

                                                                                                                              Exhibit 10.3
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


    THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into, as of the date indicated below, by and between LegalZoom.com, Inc. (the “Company”) and Dan Wernikoff (“Executive”) (each, a “Party” and collectively, the “Parties”).


Executive is employed as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer pursuant to that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated June 16, 2021 (the “Employment Agreement”).  Executive and the Company have agreed to amend and restate certain of Executive’s employment terms and the Employment Agreement as set forth herein.
1.Amendment to Employment Agreement. The Parties have agreed that, effective January 1, 2022, the Executive’s Performance Bonus target amount set forth in Section 3(b) of the Employment Agreement shall be changed to 100% of the Executive’s Base Salary. All other terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  
2.Misc. Terms and Provisions.  This Amendment contains the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all other agreements between or among the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof; provided, however, that this Amendment only modifies but does not supersede the Employment Agreement.  This Amendment may be amended only with the written consent of each Party. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.  This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of this 21st day of April, 2022.


LegalZoom.com, Inc.






By:                        /s/ Jeffrey Stibel                
         Jeffrey Stibel, Chairman of the Board






/s/ Dan Wernikoff
        _________________________________________    
Dan Wernikoff
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         429,427
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,026,194
<ALLOWANCES>                                   370,429
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,755,185
<PP&E>                                         812,076
<DEPRECIATION>                                 342,957
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,115,424
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,636,017
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,336
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,185,629
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,115,424
<SALES>                                        12,677,821
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               12,677,821
<CGS>                                          7,459,687
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,967,819
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             152,831
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,097,484
<INCOME-TAX>                                   823,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,274,484
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,274,484
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.53



</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3065 

To amend the Small Business Act to modify the contracting authority for 

sole source contracts for certain small business concerns, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2021 

Ms. SALAZAR (for herself, Ms. NEWMAN, Mr. STAUBER, Mrs. RADEWAGEN, 

and Mr. EVANS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Small Business, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to modify the contracting 

authority for sole source contracts for certain small business concerns, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Expanding Contracting 

5 Opportunities for Small Businesses Act of 2021’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3065 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO CONTRACTING AUTHORITY FOR 

2 CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS. 

3 (a) SOCIALLY AND ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED

4 SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS.—Section 8(a)(1)(D)(i)(II) 

5 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)(1)(D)(i)(II)) 

6 is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘$7,000,000’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘$10,000,000’’; and 

9 (2) by striking ‘‘$3,000,000’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘$8,000,000’’. 

11 (b) CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS OWNED

12 AND CONTROLLED BY WOMEN.—Section 8(m) of the 

13 Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(m)) is amended— 

14 (1) in paragraph (7)(B)— 

15 (A) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘$7,000,000’’ 

16 and inserting ‘‘$10,000,000’’; and 

17 (B) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘$4,000,000’’ 

18 and inserting ‘‘$8,000,000’’; and 

19 (2) in paragraph (8)(B)— 

20 (A) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘$7,000,000’’ 

21 and inserting ‘‘$10,000,000’’; and 

22 (B) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘$4,000,000’’ 

23 and inserting ‘‘$8,000,000’’. 

24 (c) QUALIFIED HUBZONE SMALL BUSINESS CON25 CERNS.—Section 31(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the Small Business 

26 Act (15 U.S.C. 657a(c)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3065 IH

1 (1) in subclause (I), by striking ‘‘$7,000,000’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘$10,000,000’’; and 

3 (2) in subclause (II), by striking ‘‘$3,000,000’’ 

4 and inserting ‘‘$8,000,000’’. 

5 (d) SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS OWNED AND CON6 TROLLED BY SERVICE-DISABLED VETERANS.—Section 

7 36(c)(2)(A) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657f) 

8 is amended— 

9 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking 

10 ‘‘$7,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$10,000,000’’; and 

11 (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking 

12 ‘‘$3,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$8,000,000’’. 

13 (e) CERTAIN VETERAN-OWNED CONCERNS.—Section 

14 8127(c) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 

15 striking ‘‘$5,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘the dollar thresholds 

16 under section 36(c)(2)(A) of the Small Business Act’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
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 Golden Telecom, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Alexander Vinogradov, President, Chief Executive 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, 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. IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 28th day of April
2005. /s/ ALEXANDER VINOGRADOV Alexander Vinogradov
President, Chief Executive Officer and
Director
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION NOTICE OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

82 FR 51253.

# PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:

 Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.

# CHANGES IN THE MEETING:

 The following matter will also be considered: FEC Email Management Policy.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Dayna C. Brown,

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2017-24338 Filed 11-3-17; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Wardell WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6914.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 1, 2010.

Victor Wardell Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Suzanne Skalla, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Victor Wardell Wright appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 52(b) motion to amend. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. *Wright v. United States,*Nos. 8:06-cr-00038-DKC-1, 8:08-cv-02830-DKC (D. Md. June 16, 2010). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
NUMBER 13-20-00201-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

EDUARDO JACAMAN, Appellant,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 49th District Court

of Webb County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Silva

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

On April 2, 2020, appellant filed a notice of appeal.1 Appellant's brief was due on 

November 9, 2020. On November 13, 2020, the clerk of the court notified appellant that, 

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), the appeal was subject to 

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Fourth Court of Appeals in San 

Antonio pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T 

CODE ANN. § 73.001.
2

dismissal for want of prosecution, unless appellant provided a reasonable explanation for 

his failure to timely file a brief within ten days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1).

On November 23, 2020, appellant filed a motion to extend the deadline to file his 

brief. We granted the motion and ordered the brief due on January 7, 2021. Appellant

failed to file a brief before the new deadline. Therefore, on January 11, 2021, the clerk of 

the court notified appellant that, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

38.8(a)(1), the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution, unless appellant 

provided a reasonable explanation for his failure to timely file a brief within ten days. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1).

Appellant has failed to either reasonably explain his failure to file a brief, file a 

motion for extension of time to file his brief, or file his brief. Accordingly, the appeal is 

dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b).

GINA M. BENAVIDES

Justice

Delivered and filed on the 

25th day of March, 2021.