alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 12.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Henry B. Smith, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of W.P. Stewart & Co.,
Ltd.;

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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

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

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

     c)   disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control
     over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the
     annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
     materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting;
     and

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

     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: March 17, 2006


/s/ Henry B. Smith
------------------------------
Henry B. Smith
President and Chief Executive Officer
#### DELAND STATE BANK, a corporation, Appellant, v. BIG MUDDY CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

Nos. GG-56 and GG-409.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 4, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 16, 1978.

W. C. Hutchison, Jr. of Hutchison & Morris, Sanford, for appellant.

John L. Graham, Jr. of Graham, Markel & Scott, John R. McDonough of Pitts, Eu-banks, Ross & Rumberger, Orlando, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the lower court in Case No. GG-56 is affirmed. The litigation to which the notice of lis pendens referred did not result in a judgment affecting the property described within the notice. *DePass v. Chitty,*90 Fla. 77, 105 So. 148 (1925).

As a result of the stipulation agreed to by the parties, in Case No. GG-409, the order denying appellant’s objections to the sale and motion to vacate is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BOISE
CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS CORPORATION'S BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND
FROM ITS STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          25,038
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  449,753
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,112
<INVENTORY>                                    234,313
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               760,510
<PP&E>                                         428,571
<DEPRECIATION>                               (182,190)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,536,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          533,441
<BONDS>                                        344,386
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           658
<OTHER-SE>                                     632,448
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,536,317
<SALES>                                      3,381,725
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,381,725
<CGS>                                        2,511,882
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,511,882
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               716,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,387
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                130,427
<INCOME-TAX>                                    55,570
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             74,857
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    74,857
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.14


</TABLE>
# C_2022222EN.01002504.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 25 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — FT v Land Hessen, intervening party: SCHUFA Holding AG

(Case C-552/21) (1)

(2022/C 222/40)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.

---
# C_2021228EN.01001801.xml

| 14.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 25 February 2021 — BT v Laudamotion GmbH

(Case C-111/21)

(2021/C 228/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BT

Defendant: Laudamotion GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the psychological impairment of a passenger, which is caused by an accident and has clinical significance, constitute a ‘bodily injury’ within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air concluded on 28 May 1999 in Montreal, signed on 9 December 1999 by the European Community and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC (1) of 5 April 2001? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the psychological impairment of a passenger, which is caused by an accident and has clinical significance, constitute a ‘bodily injury’ within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air concluded on 28 May 1999 in Montreal, signed on 9 December 1999 by the European Community and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC (1) of 5 April 2001?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
  Does Article 29 of that convention preclude a claim for compensation which would exist under the applicable national law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

Does Article 29 of that convention preclude a claim for compensation which would exist under the applicable national law?

---

(1)  : Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 on the conclusion by the European Community of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention) (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38).

---
#### Loretta LESPERANCE, Appellant, v. Don E. LESPERANCE, Appellee.

No. 69-446.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 24, 1970.

Rehearing Denied May 4, 1970.

Lurie & Goethel, Miami, for appellant.

Street & Greenfield, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered after a non-jury trial in which the trial judge found that the defendant was guilty of “fraud, deceit, overreaching and *860undue influence in gaining possession of plaintiff’s property without consideration. * * * ” The basis of the appeal is that the court failed to apply the law of the rescission of contracts. Appellant holds that law to be controlling upon the facts of this case. In the alternative appellant argues that if the case is one of fraud, then fraud was not proven by clear and convincing evidence.

. Our review of the record convinces us that the trial judge correctly found that the law applicable to this case is set out in Adams v. Saunders, 139 Fla. 730, 191 So. 312 (1939), and Rich v. Hallman, 106 Fla. 348, 143 So. 292 (1932). In the latter case the Supreme Court of Florida held:

> “In view of the age and infirmity of the donor, the confidential relation existing between the donor and the donee, the influence shown to have been exerted over the donor by the friends of the donee and by the donee herself, and in view of other facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, we feel impelled to hold that the duty was on the donee to show that the assignment of the note and mortgage brought in question was bona fide and that it was not secured by undue influence, deceit, or other improper means. Peacock v. DuBois, 90 Fla. 162, 105 So. 321; Nelson v. Brown, 164 Ala. 397, 51 So. 360, 137 Am.St.Rep. 61; Haslinger v. Gabel, 344 Ill. 354, 176 N.E. 340; Allore v. Jewell, 94 U.S. 506-513, 24 L.Ed. 260, pages 263, 264; 12 R.C.L. 972; Black on Rescission and Cancellation, §§ 249 and 253.

> “All these authorities support the general rule founded on public policy that, where a mutual confidential relation exists and a gift is made to one in whom the confidence is reposed, it is prima facie void because of such relation. The law presumes, in other words, when such relation exists, that the gift was obtained by undue influence or other improper means. When persons occupy positions of trust and confidence as did the parties to this cause, they are held to a strict measure of candor in their dealings, and any transactions between them predicated on a grossly inadequate consideration will be viewed as suspicious. Equity raises a presumption against the validity of such dealings, and imposes on the vendee or the donee the burden of showing the good faith and voluntary conduct of the donor or the vendor as the case may be. 12 R.C.L. 972, and cases cited.” 143 So. at 293.

Having determined that the trial judge applied the correct law to the factual situation before him, we find it unnecessary to detail the facts in order to justify the conclusion of the trial judge and this court.

Affirmed.
### On the RfD

1. The Mocarelli et al. (2008) and Baccarelli et al . (2008) studies (based on the Seveso accident) were selected as cocritical studies for t he derivation of the RfD. Given that these studies involve subchronic exposures and the RfD is for chronic exposures, is the rationale for this selection scientifically justified and cle arly described? Please identify and provide the rationale for any other human studies that should b e selected, including the rationale for why the study would be considered a superior candidate for the derivation of the chronic RfD. Add on to the next question

On the cancer potency

5.d. Due to nonlinearities in the Emond PBPK model (specifically pertaining to the relationship between exposure and internal dose), E PA calculated a series of risk-specific oral slope factors. The calculation of multiple slo pe factors has not been done before. Please comment on EPA’s rationale for and presentation of these slope factors. Does the calculation of multiple slope factors present a de facto assumption of low-dose nonlinearity, and if so, would it be preferable for EPA to use the same appr oach, i.e., estimation of a reference dose (RfD) from a point of departure (POD), that it has used for other chemicals in the IRIS
database?

From: Johnson, Mark S Dr CIV USA MEDCOM PHC Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 12:52 PM To: Meyer, Anita K HNC@NWO; Kurtz, Katharine M. (CI V); Putzrath, Resha (CIV) Cc: Boyd, Robert, Mr, OSD-ATL Subject: RE: NCEA Interagency Communication #68 (dr aft revised charge
for dioxin SAB review) - no change in due date (UNCLASS IFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE

I would like to know further their logic for the lo g-linear extrapolation from the various PODs. To do so assumes that even one molecule has a risk associated with it (that one molecule can cause can cer). Their logic in
the documentation is that cancer is AhR-mediated (bc no n Ahr-effects occur

at much higher exposures). If that is their suppositi on, then it is receptor mediated and must function as a promoter (like a ho rmone); therefore

must have a threshold. The NAS asked the EPA to provide a different curve beyond the POD, and the EPA argued that because they do no t have enough info, they will use the conservative approach. However, that is not what the science suggests. I would suggest a curve similar to the p horbal esters, which function in a similar, yet conservative manner, but never got that far in the phonecon.

Sorry for this long message, but I would ask the SA B if they feel that
theEPAs logic for the log-linear extrapolation from th e POD is justified.

Thanks, Mark
EXHIBIT
10.48





Second
Amendment
 To
 Change
of Control and Severance Benefits Agreement
 
 This
Second Amendment (the
“First Amendment”) to Change of Control and Severance Benefits Agreementis made this 6h day
of April, 2009, by and between ImageWare Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), on the one hand, and Charles AuBuchon, Vice President of Sales,
on the other hand (the “Executive”).
 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the
Executive entered into a Change of Control and Severance Benefits Agreement
dated as of October 31, 2005 which was then  subsequently amended on
the 27h day
of September, 2008 (the “Severance Agreement”); and
 
 WHEREAS, the Executive
continues to perform valuable services for the Company and the Company desires
to assure itself of the continuing services of Executive; and
 
 WHEREAS, in consideration of
the foregoing and in order to amend the terms of the Agreement and to provide
for the continued services of the Executive in accordance with the present
intent of the Company and the Executive.
 
 NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in further consideration of the
mutual covenants contained in the Severance Agreement, the parties do hereby
agree that the Severance Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
 
 Section“2.Term of
Agreement”strike the
language “continue until June 30, 2009” and replace it with “continue until
December 31, 2009”.
 
   
 _________________________________                                            _________________________________
 
 ImageWare
Systems,
Inc.                                                                           Charles
AuBuchon
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE GREAT
ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC. 10-Q FOR THE 28 WEEK PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER
11, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-26-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-11-1999
<CASH>                                          144395
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   184588
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     779396
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1179439
<PP&E>                                         1779205
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3178034
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1123311
<BONDS>                                         884576
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         38367
<OTHER-SE>                                      781242
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3178034
<SALES>                                        5398102
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5398102
<CGS>                                          3865212
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3865212
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1516232
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (42304)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (22307)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      8139
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (14168)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14168)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.37)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 565 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 565

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       October 6, 1994.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (S. 455) to amend title 31, United States Code, to increase Federal 
payments to units of general local government for entitlement lands, and for 
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
shall be confined to the bill and the amendments made in order by this 
resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. 
After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule and shall be considered as read. No amendment shall be in order 
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment except as specified in the report, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
Whole. All points of order against the amendments printed in the report are 
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### James AUSTIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-134.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 8, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2021148EN.01000801.xml

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark (Austria) lodged on 11 February 2021 — WY

(Case C-85/21)

(2021/C 148/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: WY

Respondent authority: Steiermärkische Landesregierung

Question referred

Is Article 21 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an ex lege loss of nationality provided for under national law, and the subsequent loss of citizenship of the Union, it is to be included in the examination of proportionality in each individual case in accordance with the principles of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Tjebbes and Others case (1) and is capable of constituting an obstacle to the loss of nationality in the case where a national has reacquired his or her previous nationality by means of a declaration of reacquisition, and the threatened loss of citizenship of the Union has a significant impact on his or her family life and professional life?

---

(1)  EU:C:2019:189.

---
#### BARING INDUSTRIES, Appellant, v. CAROL MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a New York corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-280.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 3, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.