alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION

I, R. David Anderson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of CGI Group 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 issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The issuer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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the 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 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) 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
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 issuer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 issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

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

Date: December 22, 2011



/s/ R. David AndersonR. David AndersonExecutive Vice-President andChief Financial Officer
#### § 1602.9 Commission's remedy for employer's failure to file report.

Any employer failing or refusing to file Report EEO-1 when required to do so may be compelled to file by order of a U.S. District Court, upon application of the Commission.

[31 FR 2833, Feb. 17, 1966]
forms1a2111309ex10-5.htm


    PROMISSORY
NOTE

    


    


    $
400.00                                                                           
            Dated:  March
21, 2008

    


    Principal
Amount                                $400.00                                           State
of New York

    


    FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the
undersigned hereby jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of Mary
Passalaqua, the sum Four Hundred Dollars ($400.00), together with interest
thereon at the rate of 10% per annum on the unpaid balance.  Said sum
shall be paid in the manner following:

    


    In full upon demand.

    


    All payments shall be first applied to
interest and the balance to principal.  This note may be prepaid, at
any time, on whole or in part, without penalty.  All prepayments shall
be applied in reverse order of maturity.

    


    This note shall at the option of any
holder hereof be immediately due and payable upon the failure to make any
payment due hereunder within 5 days of its due date.

    


    In the event this note shall be in
default, and placed with an attorney for collection, then the undersigned agree
to pay all reasonable attorney fees and costs of collection.  Payments
not made within five (5) days of due date shall be subject to a late charge of 5
% of said payment.  All payments hereunder shall be made to such
address as may from time to time be designated by any holder
hereof.

    


    The undersigned and all other parties
to this note, whether as endorsers, guarantors or sureties, agree to remain
fully bound hereunder until this note shall be fully paid and waive demand,
presentment and protest and all notices thereto and further agree to remain
bound, notwithstanding any extension, renewal, modification, waiver, or other
indulgence by any holder or upon the discharge or release of any obligor
hereunder or to this note, or upon the exchange, substitution, or release of any
collateral granted as security for this note.  No modification or
indulgence by any holder hereof shall be binding unless in writing; and any
indulgence on any one occasion shall not be an indulgence for any other or
future occasion.  Any modification or change of terms, hereunder
granted by any holder hereof, shall be valid and binding upon each of the
undersigned, notwithstanding the acknowledgment of any of the undersigned, and
each of the undersigned does hereby irrevocably grant to each of the others a
power of attorney to enter into any such modification on their
behalf.  The rights of any holder hereof shall be cumulative and not
necessarily successive.  This note shall take effect as a sealed
instrument and shall be construed, governed and enforced in accordance with the
laws of the State first appearing at the head of this note.  The
undersigned hereby execute this note as principals and not as
sureties.

    


    /s/ John F.
Passalaqua

                                                                                         Borrower-
John F. Passalaqua

                               Secretary,
Pegasus Tel, Inc.
[No. 27262-8-II.

Division Two.

November 14, 2002.]

#### Richard E. Sorrels, *Appellant,*v. The Estate of Oscar Johnson, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 95-2-02379-2, Stephanie A. Arend, J., entered April 13, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per QuinnBrintnall, A.C.J., concurred in by Houghton and Armstrong, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION



18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:



In connection with this quarterly report of PharmaNetics, Inc.on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof, the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to his knowledge:



1. This 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of PharmaNetics, Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.



|                        |  |                                                    
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 12, 2004 |  | /s/ John P. Funkhouser                             
|                        |  | John P. Funkhouser                                 
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



22
Exhibit 10.19
                                PROMISSORY NOTE

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned promise to pay to the order of Stephen
F. Owens the sum of Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000.) Dollars, together with
interest thereon at the rate of $5,000 for the term of the note.

            Said principal and interest shall be payable as follows:
                             ******On demand ******


     The undersigned may pay this Note in whole or in part without penalty and
including all interest. The entire balance shall be immediately due and payable
upon demand of the holder. Upon default, the undersigned shall pay all
reasonable attorney fees and costs necessary for the collection of this Note.

     This Note is executed to evidence an existing indebtedness due the payee
from the undersigned on an open account balance as of this date, and this Note
shall not be construed as a separate obligation.

     Signed under seal this 1st day of November, 2004.


UC Hub Group, Inc.


/s/ Larry Wilcox
--------------------
By: 11/17/2004


<PAGE>
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                       Exhibit 8

                             Significant Subsidiaries of Amdocs Limited
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Jurisdiction of
                                                        Incorporation or
                 List of the Subsidiaries                 Organization                      Business Name
                 ------------------------                 ------------                      -------------
      <S>                                             <C>                    <C>

      Amdocs BCS, Inc.                                State of California    Amdocs BCS, Inc.

      Amdocs BCS Vision, Inc.                         State of North         Amdocs BCS Vision, Inc.
                                                      Carolina

      Amdocs Canada, Inc.                             Canada                 Amdocs Canada, Inc.

      Amdocs Canadian Managed Services,               Canada                 Amdocs Canadian Managed Services, Inc.
        Inc.

      Amdocs Champaign, Inc.                          State of Delaware      Amdocs Champaign, Inc.

      Amdocs (Denmark) ApS                            Denmark                Amdocs (Denmark) ApS

      Amdocs Development Centre India                 India                  Amdocs Development Centre India
        Private Limited                                                      Private Limited

      Amdocs Development Limited                      Republic of Cyprus     Amdocs Development Limited

      Amdocs Holdings ULC                             Canada                 Amdocs Holding ULC

      Amdocs, Inc.                                    State of Delaware      Amdocs, Inc.

      Amdocs (Israel) Limited                         Israel                 Amdocs (Israel) Limited

      Amdocs Management Limited                       United Kingdom         Amdocs Management Limited

      Amdocs Software Solutions Kft                   Hungary                Amdocs Software Solutions Kft

      Amdocs Software Systems Ltd.                    Ireland                Amdocs Software Systems Ltd.

      Amdocs Stamford, Inc.                           State of Delaware      Amdocs Stamford, Inc.

      Amdocs (UK) Limited                             United Kingdom         Amdocs (UK) Limited

      European Software Marketing Ltd.                Island of Guernsey,    European Software Marketing Ltd.
                                                      Channel Islands

      Longshine Information Technology Co. Ltd.       British Virgin         Longshine Information Technology Co. Ltd.
                                                      Islands

      Sypress, Inc.                                   State of Delaware      Sypress, Inc.
</TABLE>
#### FAIRBANKS, MORSE & COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 17332

Congressional.

Decided April 8, 1935]

*Mr. George A. King*for the plaintiff. *Messrs. Clarence W. DeKnight*and *Ernest G. Metoalfe*were on the brief.

*Mr. Percy M. Cote,*with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General George C.*Sweeney, for the defendant.

*445Wi-ialev, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This case is similar in all respects to the case of Acme Die-Casting Corporation, No. 17330 Congressional, decided this day *(ante.*p. 415), and is governed by the decision in that case.

The plaintiff, after receiving the commandeer order did not remove from the premises either before or after the order was canceled. It remained in the premises continuously. There is no proof of any value of the taking of the lease during the period from the date of the service of the commandeer order to the receipt of the cancellation order. Therefore compensation for the taking cannot be allowed. There is proof of losses sustained by the plaintiff occasioned by the cancellation of a sublease entered into by plaintiff *446after the expropriation order had been received and in anticipation of removal. The plaintiff paid $1,710 to be released from this sublease and resumed its tenaey under the original lease. In addition to this sum the plaintiff paid for legal services in connection with the cancelation of this sublease the amount of $200. These amounts are losses sustained by reason of the commandeer order, but are consequential in their nature for which there can be no recovery. *William*Wrigley, *Jr. Co.*v. *The United*States, 75 C. Cls. 569.

The Government had no contract with the plaintiff and therefore no judgment for damages can be awarded.

This cause of action is for the taking of private property for public use and therefore comes within the general jurisdiction of this Court. *Barnes*v. *United*States, 46 C. Cls. 7.

The petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.

Williams, *Judge;*LittletoN, *Judge;*GreeN, *Judge;*and Booth, *Chief*Justice, concur.
#### LAKE CITY MORTGAGE CO v DRUKENBROD

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9929.

Decided April 29, 1929

M B Pennell, Cleveland, for Mtge Co.

Garfield, MacGregor & Baldwin, Cleveland, for Drukenbrod.

VICKERY, PJ.

We think this evidence was competent and the question should have been permitted to be answered, for notwithstanding the withdrawal of its cross demand, anything, thing that would tend to defeat *320the plaintiff’s right to recover would have been admissible, and if plaintiff below owed the defendant below, that would have wiped out the plaintiff’s claim to that extent, ,and we think the evidence should have been admitted,' but unfortunately there was no reading into the record whát the witness would have answered if he had been permitted to have answered, and so far as this record shows, the answer might have been that the plaintiff owed the defendant nothing. Consequently what was expected to be proved if the witness had been permitted to answer, it not being contained in the record, we cannot say whether it was erroneous or whether it was not. Therefore there is nothing before this court which would warrant us in disturbing this finding. It amounted to simply a weight of the testimony, and the court having found in favor of the plaintiff below, we do not feel called upon to disturb the finding g.nd it will, therefore, be affirmed.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ, concur.
#### George T. Mackey *vs.*The Lathrop Company.

First Judicial District, Hartford,

January Term, 1917.

Prentice, C. J., Thayer, Roraback, Wheeler, and Beach, Js.

Nonperformance of a contract by an employee justifies its rescission by his employer.

The evidence in the present case reviewed and *held*to support a finding of nonperformance upon the part of the employee.

Evidence of acts, conduct and declarations of the employee destructive of the purposes for which the contract was entered into, is clearly admissible to prove his nonperformance of the agreement.

Argued January 4th—

decided January 25th, 1917.

Action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract in discharging the plaintiff as a traveling salesman for the defendant, brought to and tried by the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County, *Markham,*
      *349Jfacts found and judgment rendered for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff.

*No error.*

*John J. Dwyer,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Albert C. Bill,*or the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

To the plaintiff’s claim to recover a balance, which he claimed to be due him for services performed under a written contract, four defenses were pleaded, one of which, found true, was nonperformance of the contract by the plaintiff and its repudiation by the defendant for that reason.

The plaintiff has brought the evidence before us and asks that this finding be corrected as being against the evidence. We think that the evidence supports the finding by showing acts, conduct and declarations of the plaintiff clearly evidencing an intention on his part not to be bound by the contract, thus warranting the rescission of the contract by the defendant. The corrections asked for cannot, therefore, be made, and this ends the plaintiff’s ease, unless there were errors in the rulings on evidence as claimed by his counsel. This evidence tended to prove acts, conduct and declarations on the part of the plaintiff destructive of the purposes for which the contract was entered into, and was so clearly admissible as to render a further consideration of it useless.

The other questions discussed by the plaintiff refer to other aspects of the case and not to the issues upon which the case was decided. It is needless, therefore, to inquire into their merits, for if the rulings were erroneous they were harmless to the plaintiff.

There is no error.
#### § 1603.100 Purpose.

This part contains the regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter the Commission) for processing complaints of discrimination filed under section 304 of the Government Employee Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16c.

[62 FR 17543, Apr. 10, 1997, as amended at 72 FR 5616, Feb. 7, 2007]
#### § 1472.110 Are any of my Federal assistance awards exempt from this part?

This part does not apply to any award that the Agency Director determines that the application of this part would be inconsistent with the international obligations of the United States or the laws or regulations of a foreign government.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF MARCH 31, 1999 AND FOR THE
QUARTER THEN ENDED. THIS INFORMATION IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         207,930
<SECURITIES>                                   129,437
<RECEIVABLES>                                  366,224
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    162,432
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               896,204
<PP&E>                                       1,928,813
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (99,296)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,882,921
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          978,682
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,155
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,288,634
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,882,921
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               990,506
<CGS>                                          253,598
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,159,450
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                61,594
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,851
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (168,944)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (168,944)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
#### DIXON v VAN SWERINGEN CO

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21462.

Decided May 29, 1929

Syllabus by

DAY, J.

REAL ESTATE

(510 B3f) Where an owner of land has adopted a general building, scheme or plan for the development of a tract of property, designed to make it more attractive for residential purposes by reason of certain restrictive agreements, to be imposed upon each of the separate lots sold, embodying the same in each deed, such agreements will generally be upheld, provided the same are not against public policy.

In order that restrictive agreements in a deed may be declared void as against public policy, the same must violate some statute, or be contrary to judicial decision,’ or against public health, morals, safety or welfare, or in some form be injurious to the public good.

Marshall, CJ., Kinkade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ, concur.
----

| (1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.  333-3212)   pertaining  to  the  Columbus McKinnon Corporation 1995 Incentive Stock Option Plan, the Columbus McKinnon  Corporation Non-Qualified  Stock Option Plan, the Columbus McKinnon  Corporation  Restricted  Stock Plan and the Columbus McKinnon  Corporation  Employee Stock Ownership Plan Restatement Effective April 1, 1989 of Columbus McKinnon Corporation, |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.  333-81719)  pertaining  to the  Options assumed  by  Columbus  McKinnon  Corporation  originally  granted  under  the GL International,  Inc.  1997 Stock Option Plan and the Larco Industrial Services Ltd.  1997 Stock Option Plan, and |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (3) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-137212) pertaining to the Columbus McKinnon Corporation 2006 Long Term Incentive Plan |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----