alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Taras Chebountchak, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Ardent Mines Limited;
2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report.
4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)   presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Dated this 13th day of October, 2003.



| | /s/ Taras Chebountchak
Taras Chebountchak
Principal Financial Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



---
**EXHIBIT 35.3**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**Banc of America Card Servicing Corporation**

**BA            Credit Card Trust**

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Banc of America Card            Servicing Corporation ("BACSC"), as Subservicer (the "Subservicer") pursuant to the            Delegation of Servicing Agreement dated as of May 22, 2006 (the "Prior Agreement")            between Bank of America, National Association (USA) ("BANA (USA)") and BACSC, and as            amended and restated by the Amended and Restated Delegation of Servicing Agreement            dated as of October 20, 2006 (together with the Prior Agreement, the "Agreement") by            and between FIA Card Services, National Association (as successor to BANA (USA)) and            BACSC, does hereby certify that:

| 1. | BACSC is Subservicer under the Agreement. |
|----|-------------------------------------------|

| 2. | A review of the Subservicer's activities during the                            period from and including July 1, 2006 through and including June 30,                            2007 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my                            supervision. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, BACSC                            has fulfilled all of its obligations in all material respects under the                            Agreement throughout such period. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate            this 13th day of September 2007.

             

| By:    /s/ Richard                            K.                            Struthers                                          |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Name: Richard K. Struthers

|   | Title: | Senior Vice President |
|--------|--------|-----------------------|

 

 

 

 

----
# C_2017095EN.01000203.xml

| 27.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/2

---

Appeal brought on 15 July 2016 by Market Watch Franchise & Consulting Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2016 in Case T-62/15: Market Watch v EUIPO — El CORTE INGLÉS (MITOCHRON)

(Case C-401/16 P)

(2017/C 095/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party:

By order of 1 December 2016 the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ALEXANDRA DUBOIS :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4317

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04317-AB Document 7 Filed 09/20/2002 Page 1 of 1
No. 65419.

#### Sears, Roebuck and Co. *v.*United States,

protest 300414-K (Philadelphia) .

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES KOLAWOLE OLANIYI,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

DENIS M c DONOUGH , The Secretary of

Department of Veterans Affairs,

Defendant

- Appellee,

and

JESSICA WANG

- RODRIGUEZ; et al.,

Defendants. No. 19

- 56380

D.C. No. 2:17

- cv

- 00932

- DSF

- PJW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted Apri l 20, 2021 * *

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges

.

Charles K olawole Olaniyi appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

* * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 56380

judgment in his Title VII employment action . We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de nov o. Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc. , 305 F.3d

1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc)

. We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Olaniyi’s Title VII

disparate treatment claim because Olaniyi failed to raise a genuine dispute of

material fact as to whether his job performance was satisfactory or his employer

treated him differen tly than similarly situated employees who did not belong to his

protected classes

. See Weil v. Citizens Telecom Servs. Co., LLC , 922 F.3d 993,

1002

- 04 (9th Cir. 2019) (setting forth elements of a Title VII discrimination claim

and explaining that an emplo yee’s self

- assessment alone is not enough to raise a

triable dispute); Merrick v. Farmers Ins. Grp. , 892 F.2d 1434, 1438

- 39 (9th Cir.

1990) (stray remarks are insufficient to establish discrimination)

.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Olaniyi’s

retaliation claim because Olaniyi failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact

as to whether the re was a causal link between his protected EEO complaint activity

and his demotion. See Ray v. Henderson , 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir. 2000)

(setting forth elements of a Title VII retaliation claim)

.

Olaniyi’s motions to file supplemental exhibits (Docket Entry Nos. 5 and 7)

are denied.

AFFIRMED.
A. K., Mother of A. K., Minor Child

,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN

AND FAMILIES

,

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 I F FILED

CASE NO. 1D 1 4

- 14 21

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 13, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Brantley S. Clark, Jr. , Judge.

A. K., pro se, Appellant

.

Rebecca Kapusta, Interim General Counsel, Department of Children and Families, Tallahassee and Dwight O. Slater, Appellate Counsel, Children Legal Services, Tallahassee, for Appellee

. Kelley Schaeffer, Appellate Counsel, Guardian ad Litem Program, Tavares.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON

, and THOMAS , JJ., CONCUR.
Before the First Division,

September 26, 1947

No. 51923.

#### Wedemann & Godknecht, Inc. *v.*United States,

petition 6561-R New York).

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

This is a petition filed under the provisions of section 489, Tariff Act of 1930, for the remission of additional duties accruing by reason of undervaluation on entry of certain reproductions of pictures imported from England.

The cause was originally submitted for decision upon a showing by the chairman of the board of the exporting company of the circumstances surrounding the importation which resulted in the imposition of the additional duties. Subsequently, the submission was set aside and the case restored to the trial calendar for the purpose of permitting additional proof by the petitioner.

•Ernst Wedemann, called as a witness on behalf of the petitioner, testified that he is president of the plaintiff corporation and that, he has been engaged in business as a customhouse broker for over 35 years; that in making entry of the instant importations his firm acted as agent for a London concern from whom it received consular invoices covering these shipments; that so-called submission sheets (exhibits 1 and 2) were submitted to the appraiser (R. 14); that in order to ascertain the value of the merchandise, the importer corresponded with its agents in London (R. 19) and that at the time of entry, the petitioner had no different information as to value other than that contained in the consular invoices.

The record further shows that the merchandise was entered on the basis of foreign value, the value which the importer believed to be the proper dutiable value, and appraisal was made on the basis of export value in accordance with section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930. Subsequently, an appeal for reappraisement was taken, and upon stipulation entered into between the respective parties, it was agreed that the appraised value represented the dutiable value of the merchandise. The undervaluation arose by reason of an increase in the manufacturing cost of the merchandise between the date of acceptance of the order and the date of shipment to the United States (R. 22).

It further appears that both the importer, Wedemann & Godknecht, Inc., and the exporting firm’ of A. Vivian Mansell & Co. of London assisted the Government in connection with the investigation to determine the dutiable value of the merchandise and cooperated with the customs officials in all respects.

From this record it is apparent that entry of the merchandise at less than the final appraised value was without any intent to defraud the revenue of the United States, or to conceal or misrepresent the facts, or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise.

The petition is therefore granted.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                      ----------

                    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 Extended Systems Incorporated on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Charles W. Jepson, Chief Executive
Officer 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Extended
     Systems Incorporated.




/s/ CHARLES W. JEPSON
--------------------------
Charles W. Jepson
Chief Executive Officer and
 Acting Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2003
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of
Global Resource Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ken Kinsella, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:





(1) The
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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Ken KinsellaKen
      KinsellaPrincipal
      Executive OfficerPrincipal
      Financial OfficerPrincipal
      Accounting OfficerDecember
      27, 2010
# C_2017078EN.01000602.xml

| 13.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/6

---

Appeal brought on 29 June 2016 by Franmax UAB against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 April 2016 in Case T-21/15: Franmax v EUIPO — Ehrmann (DINO)

(Case C-361/16 P)

(2017/C 078/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Franmax UAB (represented by: E. Saukalas, advokatas)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Ehrmann AG Oberschönegg im Allgäu

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of 8 November 2016 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (UNAUDITED) 206

Tax Assessments

The government is authorized and required to make inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes that have not

been duly paid. Unpaid assessments result from taxpayers filing returns without sufficient payment, as well as enforcement

programs such as examination, under-reporter, substitute for return, and combined annual wage reporting. Under federal

accounting standards, unpaid assessments are categorized as taxes receivable if taxpayers agree or a court has determined the

assessments are owed. If neither of these conditions are met, the unpaid assessments are categorized as compliance

assessments. Assessments with little or no future collection potential are called write-offs. Although compliance assessments

and write-offs are not considered receivables under federal accounting standards, they represent legally enforceable claims of

the government. There is, however, a significant difference in the collection potential between compliance assessments and

receivables.

Compliance assessments and pre-assessment work in process are $76.1 billion and $77.8 billion for FYs 2020 and 2019,

respectively. The amount of allowance for uncollectible amounts pertaining to compliance assessments cannot be reasonably

estimated, and thus the net realizable value of the pre-assessment work-in-process cannot be determined. The amount of

assessments that entities have statutory authority to collect at the end of the period but that have been written off and

excluded from accounts receivable are $95.1 billion and $106.0 billion for FYs 2020 and 2019, respectively.
Exhibit 35.3



---

EXHIBIT 35.3

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

Bank of America, National Association (USA)

BA Credit Card Trust

The undersigned,
a duly authorized officer of Bank of America, National Association (USA) (the Bank), as Subservicer (the Subservicer) pursuant to the Delegation of Servicing Agreement dated as of May 10, 2006 (as amended from time to
time, the Agreement) by and between FIA Card Services, National Association (formerly known as MBNA America Bank, National Association) and the Bank, does hereby certify that:



|1. | The Bank is Subservicer under the Agreement.
|-- | --------------------------------------------



|2. | A review of the Subservicers activities during the period from and including May 10, 2006 through and including June 30, 2006 and of its performance under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations in all material respects under the Agreement throughout such period.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 25th day of September 2006.



|       |  |                      
|------ |  | ---------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Greg W. Hobby    
|Name:  |  | Greg Hobby           
|Title: |  | Senior Vice President
July 1, 2013

Mr. Neil Blainey

New York Helicopter, Inc.

Downtown Manhatton Heliport, Pier 6

New York, NY 10004

Dear Mr. Blainey:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 17, 2013, exemption request on behalf of New York Helicopter, Inc. 

into the public docket (No. FAA-2013-0537), but we are unable to process your request any 

further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send 
2

your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the 

exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Ida M. Klepper

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3

Project No.: AAM-13-419-E

Project Officer: _______________

ARM-101:KJones:7/1/2013:Doc#36260

ARM-1/100/104:Program Office AFS-200

MR NEIL BLAINEY

NEW YORK HELICOPTER INC

DOWNTOWN MANHATTON HELIPORT PEIR 6

NEW YORK NY 10004
5000 ORG TYPE: PLEASE SELECT ONE of the FOLLOWING:
8000 COMMENTS: The comment below was received by the FMS Webmaster.

Mary Jo Lazun

1000 Name: David J. Doro

2000 Subject: Proposed rule change 31 CFR Part 203

3000 E-Mail: ddoro@firstnorthern.com

4000 Phone: 920-437-7101

5000 Comments: Dear Sir or Madam:

In regard to the proposed rule change to increase the rate of interest

charged TT&L Depositaries for the use of Treasury funds, | am AGAINST the
increase. These funds are very volatile in nature, so | am willing to

accept them under the current pricing formula. However, under the proposed
tule change, with an increased interest rate, | will have to consider the
volatile nature of Treasury funds compared to the overnight borrowing we
utilize from the Federal Home Loan Bank, which is a very stable and
predictable source of short-term funds. | think the current pricing

formula for Treasury funds is fair for both the Treasury and TT&L
Depositaries, and it should not be changed

Sincerely,

David J. Doro

First Northern Savings Bank
201 N. Monroe Ave.

Green Bay, WI 54301
No. 55853.

protests 170084-K, etc. (New York).

#### The Amscan Company et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.