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

**EXHIBIT 12.2**

**RULE 13A-14(A) CERTIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 I, Edward D. Ford, Director and acting Chief Accounting Officer  of Nettron.com, Inc. (the "Company"), certify that: 

 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of the  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  Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 4. The Company's other certifying officer 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 Company 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 Company, 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 Company'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 Company's internal  control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by  the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially  affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting; and 

 5. The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,  to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of the Company'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 Company'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 Company's internal control  over financial reporting. 

 Date: July 15, 2004 

/s/ Edward D. Ford                 Edward D. Ford   Director and acting Chief Accounting Officer 

----
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 23

- 00053

- CV

DERRICK WAYNE MCDONALD

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 74th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022

- 600

- 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Derrick Wayne McDonald, a prison inmate, has failed to timely file a

brief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a) (governing the t ime to file a brief), 38.8(a) (governing the

failure of appellant t o file a brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to

dismissal, appellant did not respond. See id. at R. 42.(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal

of a case). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to

timely file a brief.McDonald v. State Page 2 STEVE SMITH

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson,

and Justice Smith,

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed May 10, 2023

[CV06 ]
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                UNOCAL CORPORATION AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES

               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                             (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                                  YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                        ----------------------------------------
 
                                           1995    1994    1993    1992    1991
                                           -----   -----   -----   -----   -----
 
<S>                                        <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>     <C>
Earnings before cumulative effect of
  accounting changes                       $ 260   $ 124   $ 343   $ 196   $  73
 
Provision for income taxes                   203     170     268     153     139
 
Minority interest                              -       -       -       5       6
                                           -----   -----   -----   -----   -----
  Earnings subtotal (a)                      463     294     611     354     218
 
Fixed charges included in earnings:
   Interest expense                          291     275     304     379     395
   Interest portion of rentals (b)            41      50      55      61      67
                                           -----   -----   -----   -----   -----
     Subtotal                                332     325     359     440     462
 
Earnings available before fixed charges    $ 795   $ 619   $ 970   $ 794   $ 680
                                           =====   =====   =====   =====   =====
 
 
Fixed charges:
 Fixed charges included
  in earnings                              $ 332   $ 325   $ 359   $ 440   $ 462
 Capitalized interest                         35      30      30      34      40
                                           -----   -----   -----   -----   -----
  Total fixed charges                      $ 367   $ 355   $ 389   $ 474   $ 502
                                           =====   =====   =====   =====   =====
 
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges (a)       2.2     1.7     2.5     1.7     1.4
 
 
 
 
 
(a) Includes pretax asset write-downs      
    of:                                    $ 105   $  71   $  19   $  50   $ 106 
 
    The ratio of earnings, excluding 
    asset write-downs, to fixed charges 
    would be:                                2.5     1.9     2.5     1.8     1.6
   
</TABLE>
(b) Calculated as one-third of operating rental expense.
Exhibit 10.1

 

GOVERNMENT PROPERTIES INCOME TRUST

 

Summary of Trustee Compensation

 

The following is a summary of the currently effective compensation of the Trustees of Government Properties Income Trust (the “Company”) for services as Trustees, which is subject to modification at any time by the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) or the Compensation Committee of the Board, as applicable.

 

·                  Each Independent Trustee receives an annual fee of $40,000 for services as a Trustee, plus a fee of $1,250 for each meeting attended. Up to two $1,250 fees are paid if a Board meeting and one or more Board committee meetings, or two or more Board committee meetings, are held on the same date.

 

·                  Each Independent Trustee who serves as a committee chair of the Board’s Audit Committee, Compensation Committee or Nominating and Governance Committee receives an additional annual fee of $15,000, $10,000 and $10,000, respectively.

 

·                  Each Trustee receives a grant of 3,000 of the Company’s common shares of beneficial interest on the date of the first Board meeting following each annual meeting of shareholders (or, for Trustees who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of the first Board meeting attended).

 

·                  The Company generally reimburses all Trustees for travel expenses incurred in connection with their duties as Trustees and for out of pocket costs incurred in connection with their attending certain continuing education programs.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–011 2015

114th Congress, 1st Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 114–75 

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY 

WITH RESPECT TO IRAN 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

NOTIFICATION THAT THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARED IN 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12170 OF NOVEMBER 14, 1979, WITH RESPECT TO IRAN, IS TO CONTINUE IN EFFECT BEYOND NOVEMBER 14 2015, PURSUANT TO 50 U.S.C. 1622(d); PUB. L. 94–412, 

SEC. 202(d) 

NOVEMBER 16, 2015.—Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and 

ordered to be printed 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, November 10, 2015. 

Hon. PAUL D. RYAN, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies 

Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of 

a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal 

Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the 

emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In 

accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register 

for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to Iran that was declared in Executive Order 

12170 of November 14, 1979, is to continue in effect beyond November 14, 2015. 

Our relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal, and the 

process of implementing the agreements with Iran, dated January 

19, 1981, is still under way. For this reason, I have determined 

that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared in 

Executive Order 12170 with respect to Iran. 

Sincerely, 

BARACK OBAMA. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(3) 

NOTICE

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO

IRAN

On November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, the President 

declared a national emergency with respect to Iran and, pursuant 

to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 

1701–1706), took related steps to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the situation in Iran. Our 

relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal, and the process of implementing the agreements with Iran, dated January 19, 

1981, is still under way. For this reason, the national emergency 

declared on November 14, 1979, must continue in effect beyond November 14, 2015. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of 

the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing 

for 1 year the national emergency with respect to Iran declared in 

Executive Order 12170. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress. 

BARACK OBAMA. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 10, 2015. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
Office of Research and Development

National Center for Environmental Assessment

Welcome !

December 2013

to the First IRIS Bimonthly 

Public Meeting
2

The Enhanced IRIS Process: 

Systematic Review

Identify pertinent studies

Evaluate study methods

Evaluate weight of 

evidence for each effect

Select studies for 

deriving toxicity values

Derive toxicity values
3

The Enhanced IRIS Process: 

Public Engagement

Public meeting on 

literature search, 

evidence tables, 

key issues

Public meeting –

EPA may revise draft 

assessment or charge 

before peer review

Public meeting on 

problem formulation

Identify pertinent studies

Evaluate study methods

Evaluate weight of 

evidence for each effect

Select studies for 

deriving toxicity values

Derive toxicity values

YOU 

ARE 

HERE

AND 

HERE

COMING 

IN 2014!
4

These Meetings Are for Public 

Discussion

• Assessments in Step 1

– Literature search and evidence tables

– Clarity and transparency of these materials

– Study methods and quality considerations

– Key issues to address

• Assessments in Step 4

– Literature search and evidence tables

– Draft conclusions and resolution of key issues

– Charge to peer reviewers

– Clarity and transparency of these materials
5

Public Meetings Will Be Held at 

Least Every Two Months

Scheduled public meetings

– Dec 12–13, 2013

5 agents on the agenda

– Feb 26–27, 2014

– Apr 23–24

– June 25–26

– Sept 3–4

– Oct 29–30

– Dec 15–16

24

30

1

3

12

15

2

Affiliations of attendees 

for Dec 2013

Industry/Trade assoc Consultants

NGOs Academia

Other federal gov't State/Local/Tribal gov't

Media

Plus 76 from EPA
6

The New IRIS

Improved 

science

- Systematic review

- Toxicity values for all credible health hazards

- Strengthened peer review

Increased 

transparency

- Clear, concise, systematic assessments

- 2–3 public engagements before peer review

- Frequent scientific workshops

Increased 

productivity

A major challenge for 2014–2015 will be to 

complete more assessments in less time

IRIS will continue to evolve as we receive public 

input and peer review advice – Thank you!
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 

REGION IX
 

75 Hawthorne Street
 

San Francisco, CA 94105·3901
 

OFFICE OF THE 

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR 

OCT 1 4 2009 

The Honorable Louis Manuel 

Ak-Chin Indian Community 

42507 W. Peters & Nall Road 

Maricopa, Arizona 85239 

Dear Chairman Manuel: 

In December 2008, then EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson sent a letter 

informing you of the designations for the 2006 24-hour national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for fine particles (PM2.s). Your reservation was located in an area 

that was designated as attainment/unclassifiable for that standard. Those designation 

decisions were based on the 2005-2007 air quality monitoring data, which were the most 

current data at that time. 

However, these designations were never finalized because they were not 

published in the Federal Register. Current EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has reviewed 

the December 2008 decisions and has decided to promulgate area designations based on 

consideration of new 2006-2008 air quality monitoring data, the most recent data 

available. I am writing to inform you that, based on consideration of 2006-2008 air 

quality monitoring data, one additional area in Arizona, Pinal County, appears to be 

violating the 2006 24-hour PM2.s NAAQS. 

Because your reservation is located within the boundaries of Pinal County, EPA is 

reviewing our initial recommendation for your reservation. EPA is deferring the area 

designation for Pinal County so that EPA and the tribes may collect sufficient 

information to assess these areas before promulgating designations. As a first step in this 

process, EPA will gather and evaluate information. Once an evaluation is completed, we 

will notify you of our intended designation for your reservation. 

We plan to announce intended designations within the next several months and at
 

least 120 days prior to promulgating final designations. You will have an opportunity to
 

comment on EPA's intended designation once it is announced.
 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
We look forward to continuing to work with you and your staff to develop 

designations for the 24-hour PM25 NAAQS in a timely manner. If you have any 

questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Your air quality staff may wish to contact 

Colleen McKaughan, Associate Air Division Director at (520) 498-0118. 

Sincerely, 

Acting 

L~~Regional Administrator 

cc: Roman Orona, Environmental Director 

2
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WAH YUET (USA), INC., Plaintiff, and YONG LI CHEN, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General; TOM RIDGE, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; DONALD NEUFELD, Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. No. 06-55709 D.C. No. CV-04-09145-CAS
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding 

# FILED
MAR 08 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 Submitted March 3, 2010 ** Pasadena, California Before: GOULD, IKUTA and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Because the Immigration and Naturali zation Service (now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)) recei ved a report from an agent of the antifraud unit of the Consulate General indica ting that Wah Yuet no longer maintained a qualifying relationship with its former parent company, see 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(C), 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(2), substantial evidence supports USCIS’sdetermination that there was “good and sufficient cause” to revoke Wah Yuet’s I140, 8 U.S.C. § 1155. No record evidence co mpels the conclusion, contrary to that of USCIS, that such a qualifying relationship continued to exist “at the time the [revocation] decision was issued.” Herrera v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. , 571 F.3d 881, 886 (9th Cir. 2009). Indeed, no record evidence indicates any continuing relationship between Wah Yu et and its one-time parent corporation after 1997. Furthermore, the Administrative Appeals Office (“AAO”) did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Chen’s appeal. Substantial evidence supports the AAO’s3 conclusion that USCIS sent a Notice of Intent to Revoke (“NOIR”) to the proper address on file. The record does not compel the conclusion that written notification of Wah Yuet’s change of addr ess was filed with the INS prior to the date of the NOIR. See 8 C.F.R. § 205.2. Because in the wake of the revocation of the I-140 Chen could not demonstrate that he was “eligible to r eceive an immigrant visa” as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), USCIS did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen’s I-485 application for adjustment of status. The Portability Provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(j), is inapplicable to this case. See Herrera , 571 F.3d at 889. AFFIRMED.
#### 52.222-39 [Reserved]
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

DONNA McCUE-EMERY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3666 ) DAVID THOMAS EMERY, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 27, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Lauralee G. Westine, Judge. Allison M. Perry of Florida Appeals, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. David L. Hurvitz of Law Office of David Hurvitz PA, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, CASANUEVA, and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
725.170 Exceptions for Foreign Assistance Act functions. ( a ) In addition to the exception stated in FAR 25.103 for purchases of foreign end products for use outside the United States, Executive Order 11223, dated May 12, 1965, provides an exception for assistance functions performed under the authority of the Foreign Assistance Act.
( b ) USAID regulation at 22 CFR part 228 contains generally more prescriptive geographic procurement requirements under the Foreign Assistance Act than those under the Buy American Act. As a general rule, the requirements in 22 CFR part 228 will be used in USAID program-funded awards. For operating expense-funded procurements for supplies for use in the United States, USAID applies the Buy American Act requirements.
[89 FR 4206, Jan. 23, 2024]
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Resource: Increasing Access to Higher Education for Justice-Involved Individuals      

# Resource: Increasing Access to Higher Education for Justice-Involved Individuals

This guide (PDF, 54 pages) provides information for colleges and universities to help remove barriers that can prevent people with criminal records from pursuing higher education. It also includes recommendations for how admissions practices can be modified to reflect a more holistic review of applicants. 

http://www2.ed.gov/documents/beyond-the-box/guidance.pdf?utm_source=youth.gov&utm_medium=federal-links&utm_campaign=reports-and-resources