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

                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Francis Mailhot, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of MILLENNIUM CAPITAL
VENTURE HOLDINGS, INC.(the "Issuer");

      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 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 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) 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

            (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the Issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter ending December 31, 2003that 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 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.

By:  /s/ Francis Mailhot
     ------------------------------
     Francis Mailhot
     President, Principal Financial Officer,
     Principal Accounting Officer,
     Chairman of the Board of Directors

Dated: March 16, 2005
Form of Amendment to Conversion Stock Option Agreement



 Exhibit 10.11 
 FORM AMENDMENT TO 
 KAR HOLDINGS,
INC. 
 CONVERSION STOCK OPTION
AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT TO KAR HOLDINGS, INC. CONVERSION STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT (the
“Amendment”), dated as of             ,         , between KAR Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(“Holdings”), and                      (the “Employee”). 
 WHEREAS, Holdings and Employee are parties to that certain KAR Holdings, Inc. Conversion Stock Option Agreement dated as of April 20, 2007 (the
“Original Agreement”), and 
 WHEREAS, Holdings and Employee have determined that Schedule A to the Original
Agreement contained certain errors resulting from mathematical miscalculations, and desire to amend and restate Schedule A to correct said errors; 
 NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 1. Capitalized Terms. Capitalized terms used
herein without definition have the meaning set forth in the Original Agreement. 
 2. Corrected Schedule A. Schedule A to the Original
Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the Amended and Restated Schedule A attached to this Amendment. 
 3. Original
Agreement. The Original Agreement, as hereby amended with the attached Amended and Restated Schedule A, shall remain in full force and effect. 
 4. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Holdings and the Employee have duly executed this Amendment to KAR Holdings, Inc. Conversion Stock Option Agreement as
of the date first above written. 
  

			
	KAR HOLDINGS, INC.
		
	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	
	Title:	 	
	
	EMPLOYEE
	
	  










 AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 SCHEDULE A 
 Conversion Options 
  

							
	 Name of Plan
 Granting Axle
 Holdings Options

	  	 Options
	  	 Exercise Price
	  	 Expiration Date
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Stratotankers, Fueling the fight from above

By Airman 1st Class Gerald R. Willis36th Wing Public Affairs

                ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, Guam  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Andersen Air Force Base website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Andersen Air Force Base506th Expeditionary Aerial Refueling SquadronrefuelAerial Refueling
Before the Third Division,

June 5, 1952

No. 56750.

protests 172001-K, etc. (New York).

#### Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found; not landed, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as not landed, not found; manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Westridge


Westridge

BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.




Number

Shares







Authorized Common Stock

CUSIP No. 96144X  10  2

      50,000,000 Shares

      Par Value: $0.001







This Certifies That







Is The Record Holder Of




Shares of WESTRIDGE BUSINESS SERVICES INC. Common Stock

Transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar.




Witness the seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of it duly authorized officers.




Dated:







________________________        Corporate Seal        ________________________

                Secretary                                                                        President
# C_2014421EN.01005401.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/54

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 30 September 2014 — DM v BEREC

(Case F-35/12) (1)

1

((Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Conditions of engagement - Medical examination on engagement - Article 100 of the CEOS - Deferment of medical cover - Contract terminated at the end of the probationary period - Claims for annulment which have become devoid of purpose - Deferment of medical cover on the engagement of the member of staff concerned by another agency of the European Union - No effect - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 421/75

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: DM (represented by: initially, D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, then D. Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (represented by: M. Chiodi, Agent, D. Waelbroeck, A. Duron, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to defer the applicant’s medical cover from the date of his entry into service and of the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the dispute. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the dispute.

| 2. | The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by DM. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications is to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by DM.

---

(1)  OJ C 138 of 12/05/2012, p. 37.

1

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

132417 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. DARREN FINDLING, Personal Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of Justices Frank E. Early, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132417 COA: 267519 Oakland CC: 2005-064647-NH JEFFREY PARKER, M.D., and JEFFREY PARKER, M.D., P.C., d/b/a/ ADVANCED SPORTS MEDICINE, P.C., Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of November 29, 2007, the application for leave to appeal the September 28, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the
decision in Braverman v Garden City Hospital (Docket Nos. 134445-6). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on April 9, 2008 , 480 Mich 1 159 (2008), the application is again considered , and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l0519 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2008

Clerk
No. 50724.

#### Protests 61539-K, etc., of Balfour, Guthrie & Co., Ltd., et al. (Boston, etc.).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2015155EN.01000501.xml

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin — Finland) — Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry v Öljytuote ry, Shell Aviation Finland Oy

(Case C-533/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2008/104/EC - Temporary agency work - Article 4(1) - Prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work - Justification - Grounds of general interest - Obligation to review - Scope))

(2015/C 155/05)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Työtuomioistuin

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry

Applicant:

Defendants: Öljytuote ry, Shell Aviation Finland Oy

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1) of Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work must be interpreted as meaning that:

| — | the provision is addressed only to the competent authorities of the Member States, imposing on them an obligation to review in order to ensure that any potential prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work are justified, and, therefore, |
| --- | --- |

—

the provision is addressed only to the competent authorities of the Member States, imposing on them an obligation to review in order to ensure that any potential prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work are justified, and, therefore,

| — | the provision does not impose an obligation on national courts not to apply any rule of national law containing prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work which are not justified on grounds of general interest within the meaning of Article 4(1). |
| --- | --- |

—

the provision does not impose an obligation on national courts not to apply any rule of national law containing prohibitions or restrictions on the use of temporary agency work which are not justified on grounds of general interest within the meaning of Article 4(1).

---

(1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.

1

---
Exhibit 21.1

THE HACKETT GROUP, INC.

LISTING OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                          |  |                  
|----------------------------------------- |  | -----------------
|THE HACKETT GROUP, INC. SUBSIDIARIES      |  | JURISDICTION     
|                                          | 
|REL Consultancy Pty Limited               |  | Australia        
|REL Consultores Internacionais S/C Ltda.  |  | Brazil           
|Scott Mednick & Associates                |  | California       
|The Hackett Group Canada, Inc.            |  | Canada           
|Answerthink Ltd.                          |  | Canada           
|triSpan, Inc.                             |  | Delaware         
|EZ Commerce Global Solutions, Inc.        |  | Delaware         
|Resource Evaluation, Inc.                 |  | Delaware         
|THINK New Ideas, Inc.                     |  | Delaware         
|Beacon Analytics, Inc.                    |  | Florida          
|CFT Consulting, Inc.                      |  | Florida          
|GCSB Acquisition Corporation              |  | Florida          
|Epic Acquisition Corporation              |  | Florida          
|Resource Evaluation SAS                   |  | France           
|The Hackett Group GmbH                    |  | Germany          
|REL Consultancy Group GmbH                |  | Germany          
|REL Consultancy Group SRL                 |  | Italy            
|Infinity Consulting Group, Inc.           |  | Indiana          
|Advis Acquisition Corporation             |  | Massachusetts    
|Legacy Technology, Inc.                   |  | Massachusetts    
|REL de Mexico, SA de CV                   |  | Mexico           
|Answerthink Netherlands BV                |  | Netherlands      
|Delphi Partners, Inc.                     |  | New Jersey       
|On Ramp, Inc.                             |  | New York         
|SD Goodman Group, Inc.                    |  | New York         
|The Hackett Group, Inc.                   |  | Ohio             
|Group Cortex, Inc.                        |  | Pennsylvania     
|Answerthink (India) Ltd.                  |  | Republic of India
|Answerthink Consulting India Private Ltd. |  | Republic of India
|REL Consultancy PTE Limited               |  | Singapore        
|REL Consultancy Group SL                  |  | Spain            
|Answerthink Switzerland AG                |  | Switzerland      
|Hackett  REL Limited                     |  | United Kingdom   
|REL Consultancy Group Limited             |  | United Kingdom   
|Resource Evaluation Limited               |  | United Kingdom   
|The Hackett Group Limited                 |  | United Kingdom
# C_2014462EN.01000602.xml

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 — Republic of Poland v European Commission

(Case C-273/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Expenditure incurred by the Republic of Poland))

(2014/C 462/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 215 of 27.7.2013.

1

---
Exhibit 13.1

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 Mexicana de Cananea, S.A. de C.V. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending
December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Xavier García de Quevedo Topete, President and General Director of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|                    |  |     |  |                                                                                                              
|------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: July 14, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/XAVIER GARCÍA DE QUEVEDO TOPETEName: Xavier García de Quevedo Topete
Title: President and General Director

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mexicana de Cananea, S.A. de C.V. and will be retained by Mexicana de Cananea, S.A. de
C.V. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
# C_2012399EN.01002301.xml

| 22.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/23

---

Order of the General Court of 13 September 2012 — Bäßler v OHIM (MAX)

(Case T-187/12)

(Application - Formal requirements - Manifest inadmissibility)

2012/C 399/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Uwe Bäßler (Gmunden, Austria) (represented by: L. Müller, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 February 2012 (Case R 0909/2011-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark MAX as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

| 2. | Orders the applicant to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to bear his own costs.

---
Consumer Product Safety CommissionSAFETY WARNING - BUNK BEDSCPSC Document #5001
Falling mattresses or foundations can cause injury or even kill a small child. Mattresses and/or foundations resting only on ledges need cross wires, or other means of support to help prevent dislodgement, even when beds are not stacked.

SECURELY FASTEN SUPPORTS TO LEDGES OF BOTH BEDS WITH SCREWS OR BOLTS.

SUPPORTS CAN BE PROVIDED BY WOOD SLATS, METAL STRAPS, OR STURDY WIRES.

If mattresses or foundations on either bunk bed rely on side rail ledges as the only means of support, consumers should write to: Bunk Bed Kit, P.O. Box 2436, High Point, NC 27261, and ask for a free cross wire support kit.

008908