alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 12.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Lai Ni Quiaque, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed this annual report of City Telecom (H.K.) Limited;

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(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the 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(s) 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: January 28, 2008 |  | /s/ Lai Ni Quiaque
|                       |  | Name:              |  | Lai Ni Quiaque         
|                       |  | Title:             |  | Chief Financial Officer
Case No. 9,773.

#### MOORE v. RINGGOLD.

[3 Cranch, C. C. 434.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1829.

Sale — Possession—Creditors.

A bill of sale of goods is void as to creditors, unless the possession accompanies and follows the deed.

[Cited in brief in Brawn v. Keller, 43 Pa. St. 105.]

Replevin of a horse taken by the defendant, as marshal, in execution against Dunning, and found in his possession. Theplain-tiff claimed the property under a sale from Dunning, who testified that he sent the horse to Moore, with a bill of sale; that Moore sent him back to Dunning with the bill of sale, saying that as he had no other horse, he might keep him till he (Moore) should send for him.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(nem. con.), upon the authority of the case of Hamilton v. Russell, 1 Cranch [5 U. S.] 309, instructed the jury *699that the sale was void as to creditors, unless the possession accompanied and followed the hill of sale. Verdict for the defendant.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JON STEVENS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2124 MCE GGH P

vs.

TERESA SCHWARTZ, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner seeks a “stay” of thirty days, averring

that he has been in transport and out-to-court on a civil matter in Placer County Superior Court,

has not yet received respondent’s answer, and apparently intends to file a reply. See, Request

filed on June 3, 2005. 

A stay being inappropriate in these circumstances, the court will, instead construe

petitioner’s request as one for an extension of time and will grant petitioner a sixty-day extension

of time to file his reply. This extension should be adequate for petitioner to receive respondent’s

answer and for petitioner, thereafter, to compose, file and serve his reply.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s June 3, 2005 request for a “stay” is construed as a request for an

Case 2:04-cv-02124-MCE -GGH Document 23 Filed 06/10/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

extension of time and, as such, is granted; 

2. Petitioner is granted sixty days from the date of this order in which to file and

serve a reply;

3. On this occasion only, because petitioner is not sure of his location in the

immediate future, the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve him both at his address of record at

CMF-Vacaville and at DVI/ P.O. Box 600/ Tracy, CA 95378.

DATED: 6/10/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:009

stev2124.eot

Case 2:04-cv-02124-MCE -GGH Document 23 Filed 06/10/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 59018.

protest 199225-K (Philadelphia).

#### Bers & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J. It

was stipulated that duty was assessed on 55.58 percent, or 52,714 pounds, and that the actual and true lead content weight was 51.06 percent, or 48,427 pounds, resulting in an overpayment of $32.16. On the record presented, it was held that duty is assessable upon 48,427 pounds, and the collector was directed to refund the overpayment of $32.16.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Request for Dismissal and Order Thereon Doran v. RadioShack, et al.

 CIV. S-04-1757 FCD CMK

LYNN HUBBARD, III, SBN 69773

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD IV, SBN 212970

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III

12 WILLIAMSBURG LANE

CHICO, CA 95926

Telephone: (530) 895-3252

Fax: (530) 894-8244

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ALDEN J. PARKER, SBN 196808

JACKSON LEWIS LLP

1215 K Street, Suite 1800

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 341-0404

Facsimile: (916) 341-0141

Attorneys for Defendant

RADIOSHACK CORPORATION

SHAWNA M. KASHACK, SBN 224989

ROBINSON, DILANDO, & WHITAKER

7801 Folsom Blvd., Suite 325

Sacramento, CA 95826

Telephone: (916) 386-0743

Facsimile: (916) 386-0687

Attorneys for Defendant

ROBERT R. GALLAWAY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY DORAN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

RADIOSHACK CORPORATION dba

RADIOSHACK; ROBERT R. GALLAWAY;

and DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. CIV. S 04-1757 FCD CMK

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL AND

ORDER THEREON 

Case 2:04-cv-01757-FCD-CMK Document 15 Filed 06/24/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Request for Dismissal and Order Thereon Doran v. RadioShack, et al.

- 2 - CIV. S-04-1757 FCD CMK

TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES:

Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement and Release between plaintiff, Jerry Doran,

and defendant, RadioShack Corporation dba RadioShack and Robert R. Gallaway, the

parties hereby request that all parties be dismissed with prejudice from the above-entitled

action.

Dated: June 17, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III

 /s/ Scott Hubbard, IV 

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD, IV 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: June 17, 2005 JACKSON LEWIS LLP

 Signature on File 

ALDEN J. PARKER

Attorneys for Defendant RADIOSHACK

CORPORATION dba RADIOSHACK

Dated: June 17, 2005 ROBINSON, DILANDO, & WHITAKER

 Signature on File 

SHAWNA M. KASHACK

Attorneys for Defendant ROBERT R.

GALLAWAY

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint of plaintiff, USDC Case No. CIV.S-04-

1757 FCD CMK, is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: June 23, 2005 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

United States District Court Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01757-FCD-CMK Document 15 Filed 06/24/05 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
31.2




I,
Lawrence Schaffer, certify that:




I have
reviewed this Annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Case Financial,
Inc;




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 report;




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;




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 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;




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
functions):




(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.






/s/ Lawrence
      Schaffer
              Lawrence
      Schaffer
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              January
      13, 2009
I am chairman of several conservation groups and a very involved activist on conservation. I have only

one main comment to make that is ENFORCEMENT of t he regulations all ready on the books. The government has sold out every conservationist by not ENFORCEMENT of the regulations that they are advocating. Their is a lot of damage being done in the name of economical development and putting

conservation on t he back burner by not ENFORCEMENT of the regulations. It is going to take decades to correct the damage that not ENFORCEMENT has done. Look at the BP spill ENFORCEMENT would of prevented this

Ivan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

501 “I” STREET

SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

Humberto Hernandez-Cerda,

 DEFAULT JUDGMENT

v.

Case No. 2:04-CV-1698 DFL DAD

Big Foot Industries, Inc., et al.

___________________________

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED default judgment is hereby

ENTERED against defendants, pursuant to order dated 12/2/2005:

Big Foot Industries, Inc., and Preferred Processors Company, LLC

January 13, 2006

JACK L. WAGNER, CLERK

By /s/ L. Reader, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:04-cv-01698-RRB-DAD Document 18 Filed 01/13/06 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 31**

**CERTIFICATION**

 

           I, George A. Cretecos, certify that:

 
    - I have reviewed this Annual Report in Form 10-KSB of Nathaniel Energy  Corporation;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, 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 officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15-(e)) for the  issuer and have:

 

a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter(the issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.        The issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

(Section 302 Certification)

I, Thomas E. Vessey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of 1st Centennial Bancorp;

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 officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in the annual report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
the registrants Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves Management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: October 25, 2006



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Thomas E. Vessey                 
|Thomas E. Vessey,                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
Record of Contacts

 FDMS Docket No. FAA-2012-0109

 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

Bombardier 

Aerospace

Jake Levesque

(514) 855-5001 x56633

9/16/2010 No objections

Bombardier 

Aerospace

Francisco Doyon

(514) 855-5001 x59571

9/16/2010 No objections

TCCA Derek Ferguson

(613) 952-4356

9/28/2010 No objections
No. 59013.

protest 215448-K (New York).

#### Alltransport, Incorporated *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of goat and sheep leather imported to be used in the manufacture of boots, shoes, or footwear, and that the facts are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Max Rosenberg*v. *United States*(32 Cust. Ct. 295, C. D. 1616), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JILL P. TELFER (State Bar No. 145450)

LAW OFFICES OF JILL P. TELFER

A Professional Corporation

331 “J” Street, Suite 200

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 446-1916

Facsimile: (916) 446-1726

Attorney for Plaintiff 

MICHAEL ASBERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ASBERRY,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, DOES 1-20

inclusive

 Defendants.

 

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

CASE NO. CIV S.-04-2467 LKK PAN 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO

DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST CAUSE

OF ACTION FOR DISABILITY

DISCRIMINATION

The parties hereby stipulate and request the Court to order the dismissal of plaintiff Michael

Asberry’s claim in his complaint for disability discrimination, with the parties waiving costs and fees

as to this cause of action. Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies to this claim alone.

Plaintiff still intends on proceeding to trial on his second claim for retaliation.

Date: November 2, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF JILL P. TELFER

A Professional Corporation

/s/ Jill P. Telfer

___________________________________ 

 

JILL P. TELFER

Attorney for Plaintiff

MICHAEL ASBERRY

Case 2:04-cv-02467-LKK -PAN Document 78 Filed 11/14/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

Date: November 2, 2005 CITY OF SACRAMENTO

/s/ David S. Womack

___________________________________ 

 

DAVID S. WOMACK, Deputy City Attorney

Attorney for Defendant, 

CITY OF SACRAMENTO

The first cause of action for disability discrimination is hereby 

DISMISSED, with the parties waiving costs and fees as to this claim alone. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: November 10, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-02467-LKK -PAN Document 78 Filed 11/14/05 Page 2 of 2
#### James K. Ho, Respondent, v Chong Choi et al., Appellants.

[634 NYS2d 397]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover rents *506due under a lease, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated April 7, 1994, which, among other things, granted the motion of the plaintiff to preliminarily enjoin them from denying the plaintiff access to the premises leased by them from the plaintiff and directed them to pay the sum of $39,212.50 to the plaintiff for arrears in rent.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the plaintiff for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from denying the plaintiff access to the leased premises. The lease provides the plaintiff with the right to enter the premises to make repairs. Additionally, the court properly directed the defendants to pay arrears in rent to be held in the escrow account of the plaintiff’s attorney since the defendants agreed at the hearing on January 25, 1994, to do so. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION, ) 2:04-cv-1752-GEB-PAN

)

Plaintiff, ) 

) ORDER

v. ) 

)

RAMON GUERRERO d/b/a EL GRULLENSE )

RESTAURANT II and RASIL G, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

)

On December 8, 2005, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Shorten

Time and Motion to Extend Case Deadlines,” which requests a two

month extension of time for (1) the discovery completion date and

(2) the last date to hear law and motion matters. The Declaration

of Evangelina Fierro Hernandez filed in support of the motion

states at page three that “Defendant agreed to the EEOC’s request

for an extension.” 

The modifications can be granted if the last date to hear

law and motion matters is changed slightly from what Plaintiff

requests and the final pretrial conference is rescheduled. 

Case 2:04-cv-01752-GEB-PAN Document 23 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Therefore, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order filed January 11,

2005, is modified as follows: 

(1) All discovery shall be completed by February 27,

2006; 

(2) The last hearing date for law and motion matters is

March 27, 2006, at 9:00 a.m.

(3) The final pretrial conference is rescheduled to

commence at 2:30 p.m. on May 22, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 12, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-01752-GEB-PAN Document 23 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 2