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

I, Stefan Johnsson, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of AB Volvo (publ);

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 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 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: June 10, 2005                                              /s/ Stefan Johnsson
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1305 

To provide for the conveyance of the Forest Service Lake Hill Administrative 

Site in Summit County, Colorado. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 16 (legislative day, JULY 15), 2013 

Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr. BENNET) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for the conveyance of the Forest Service Lake 

Hill Administrative Site in Summit County, Colorado. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lake Hill Administra5 tive Site Affordable Housing Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) COUNTY.—The term ‘‘County’’ means Sum9 mit County, Colorado. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 1305 IS

1 (2) LAKE HILL ADMINISTRATIVE SITE.—The 

2 term ‘‘Lake Hill Administrative Site’’ means the 

3 parcel of approximately 40 acres of National Forest 

4 System land in the County, as depicted on the map 

5 entitled ‘‘Lake Hill Administrative Site’’ and dated 

6 June 2012. 

7 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

8 the Secretary of Agriculture. 

9 SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE OF FOREST SERVICE LAKE HILL AD10 MINISTRATIVE SITE, SUMMIT COUNTY, COLO11 RADO. 

12 (a) CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY.—Upon receipt of an 

13 offer from the County in which the County agrees to the 

14 condition imposed by subsection (c), the Secretary shall 

15 use the authority provided by the Forest Service Facility 

16 Realignment and Enhancement Act of 2005 (Public Law 

17 109–54; 16 U.S.C. 580d note) to convey to the County 

18 all right, title, and interest of the United States in and 

19 to the Forest Service Lake Hill Administrative Site. 

20 (b) APPLICATION OF LAW.— 

21 (1) TREATMENT AS ADMINISTRATIVE SITE.— 

22 The Lake Hill Administrative Site is considered to 

23 be an administrative site under section 502(1)(A) of 

24 the Forest Service Facility Realignment and Enmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•S 1305 IS

1 hancement Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–54; 16 

2 U.S.C. 580d note). 

3 (2) EXCEPTION.—Section 502(1)(C) of that 

4 Act does not apply to the conveyance of the Lake 

5 Hill Administrative Site. 

6 (c) COSTS.—The County shall be responsible for 

7 processing and transaction costs related to the direct sale 

8 under subsection (a). 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 10628.

#### North British & Mercantile Insurance Co. *v.*Smith et al.

Decided December 15, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Hardin county.

*Messrs. Johnson & Johnson*and *Mr. J. W. Mooney,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Phil M. Crozv,*for defendants in error.

Judgment of circuit court reversed and that of common pleas affirmed.

Price, C. J., Si-iauck, Crew, 'Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
TRUSTEE ACCEPTANCE

TO:  Wells Fargo Bank (Colorado), N.A.
     Nordstrom Credit, Inc.

Norwest Bank Colorado, National Association (the "Successor Trustee"), 
hereby acknowledges and accepts its appointment by Nordstrom Credit, 
Inc. (The "Company") as successor trustee under that certain indenture 
by and between the Company and Wells Fargo Bank (Colorado), N.A., as 
successor trustee (the "Resigning Trustee"), dated as of November 15, 
1984, as supplemented by the First Supplemental Indenture dated as of 
January 15, 1988, the Second Supplemental Indenture dated as of June 1, 
1989, and the Third Supplemental Indenture dated as of October 19, 1990 
(as supplemented, the "Indenture"), providing for the issuance from time 
to time of unsecured debentures, notes or other evidences of 
indebtedness of the Company (the "Securities") to be issued in one or 
more series under such Indenture.

This acceptance is given pursuant to Section 611 of the Indenture, and 
shall be applicable with respect to all series of Securities heretofore 
issued under the Indenture.

Dated:  March 20, 1997 

NORWEST BANK COLORADO,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION



BY:/s/ Cheryl J. Hanson
       ----------------------------
   Cheryl J. Hanson, Vice President

The Company hereby confirms Norwest Bank Colorado, National Association 
is vested with all the rights, powers, trusts and duties of the 
Resigning Trustee under the Indenture.

Dated:  March 20, 1997

NORDSTROM CREDIT, INC.



BY:/s/ John C. Walgamott
       -----------------------------
       John C. Walgamott, President
#### Bernard C. HAND, Appellant, v. CITY OF NORTH MIAMI et al., Appellees.

No. 67-1015.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

June 4, 1968.

Rehearing Denied June 25, 1968.

*37Horton & Schwartz, Hartnett & Gill-man, Miami, for appellant.

Blackwell, Walker & Gray and James E. Tribble, Sager, Silverman & Bodne, Miami, for appellees.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in the trial court seeks reversal of an order dismissing the municipality as a party-defendant in a tort case. The only charge against the municipality arises under the doctrine of respondeat superior for alleged actions of one of its police officers, committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the municipality, which resulted in the false arrest of the plaintiff.

We find that if the act was committed it was an ultra vires act of the municipal employee beyond the geographical boundaries of the municipality and, therefore, the municipality would not be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. See: Town of Palm Beach v. Vlahos, 153 Fla. 781, 15 So.2d 839, modified 154 Fla. 159, 15 So.2d 848; City of Coral Gables v. Giblin, Fla.App.1961, 127 So.2d 914; Collins v. State, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 700.

Affirmed.
#### HORN v. TAYLOR.

No. 35729.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1967.

Appeal dismissed without opinion. 189 So.2d 198.
#### In the Matter of Shawn Thomas, Petitioner, v Thomas Ricks, as Superintendent of Upstate Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

[736 NYS2d 194]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

*748Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting inmates from participation in unauthorized organizational activity. As set forth in the misbehavior report, two correction officers were moving petitioner’s cellmate to another cell when petitioner began chanting from the recreation pen, “Blood up! Blood up! Blood up!” The officers recognized this as a chant used by members of an unauthorized prison gang known as the “Bloods.” At the disciplinary hearing, the misbehavior report was admitted in evidence as was a videotape from the surveillance camera positioned outside petitioner’s cell. The chanted words can be heard on the tape although their source cannot be determined. The correction officer who authored the misbehavior report testified that he had not only heard the words in question, but had observed petitioner saying them. A second correction officer testified that he had received training in unauthorized inmate activities such as prison gangs and he recognized the words as a chant used as a signal by members of the Bloods.

The proof submitted at the hearing was sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see, *Matter of Marcus v Goord,*287 AD2d 906; *Matter of Cornwall v Goord,*284 AD2d 763, 764). Although petitioner’s former cellmate testified that petitioner had remained silent while the chant was uttered by a neighboring inmate, this presented an issue of credibility for resolution by the Hearing Officer *(see, Matter of Allah v Selsky,*265 AD2d 824; *Matter of Devodier v Selsky,*241 AD2d 737). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Spain, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
970 CENSUS OF 1850. (
TABLE Il—POPULATION BY SUBDIVISIONS OF COUNTIES.* °
1.—EL DORADO COUNTY.
wiirze, FREE COLORED.
Cities, towns, townships, districts, parishes, precincts, wards, _ AGGREGATR
Wundreds, &e, POPULATION,
Fr ‘Total. M. F Total.
Cafion Creek,. 7 252 |
Centreville, an + 84 ‘
Cincinnati, and vi 3 168
Consumes. are 1, 002
Cullome 3 588
Culloms, vicinity of « 2 2
Diumond Springs 42 429
. Dry Creek... . 210
Dutch Creek. Bud
‘East Cafion. * AQ
Empire Cation 1 84
French Cafion, 2 168
‘Georgetown, w 30 AG
Granite Creek ._ 1 126
Greenwood Vuiley. 2 336
Tiiinvis Cuiion 3 Bt
Trish Creek 3 252
Kelsey's vicinity. 7 74
420
420
Mathenins oe
Mead Springs, and vieinity - 462
Middle Fork of American River. 1,722
a
116
136
168
420
Placerville, and vieluity. 5, 623
Pleasant Hill, and vicinity, 378
Ringold, and vicinity 253
Salmon Falla ... 210
South Fork of American Rivei 4, B38
Spanish Cafion ... 273
Slate Greek... 2
588 |
986 i
|
19,281 or 20, 057 |
2—LOS ANGELES COUNTY. i
Los Angeles City... sot 707 1,598 5 7 12 | 1,610 |
3.—MONTEREY COUNTY.
‘Monterey City 668 415 1,083 3! 1 9 | 1,092
4—NAPA COUNTY. 1
. /
Napa City 03 ou | 19 ;

5,—SACRAMENTO COUNTY.

Consumnes Rit

rar 319 ed
Mississippi Bar . F i
Mormon Island | an | a2
Negro Bar... 833 8
Sacramento City 6,169 2
‘Above tho city uo 12 oS
Below the city. 119 6 10

* No other counties are given in subdivislons by the marshals, and the aubdivisions do not ulways male up tho total of the county.
#### Ada YESSIN, Individually and Ada Yessin, as Executrix of the Estate of David Yessin, Appellant, v. HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 66-1076.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 19, 1967.

Saul T. Von Zamft, Miami, for appellant,.

Preddy, Haddad & Kutner, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: Cruger v. Allstate Insurance Company, Fla.App. 1964, 162 So.2d 690; § 92.031(4), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         199,418
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,801
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     72,471
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               307,974
<PP&E>                                       2,022,937
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,255,771)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,136,594
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,202,233
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,185
<OTHER-SE>                                    (84,824)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,136,594
<SALES>                                      1,587,282
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,587,282
<CGS>                                        1,142,076
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,142,076
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,219,981
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             3,488,058
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              81,948
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,344,781)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,344,781)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,344,781)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6160

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KEVIN RODELL JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 99-6165

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KEVIN RODELL JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-95-319-A, CA-99-1-AM)

Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 1999
2

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Rodell Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Bonner McClendon,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order denying the § 2255

motion is marked as “filed” on January 5, 1999, the district

court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on

January 6, 1999. Pursuant to Rule 58 and 79(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered

on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the

district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232,

1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Kevin Rodell Johnson appeals

orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994

& Supp. 1998) and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals

on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v.

Johnson, Nos. CR-95-319-A; CA-99-1-AM (E.D. Va. Jan. 6 & Jan. 26,

1999).* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DAY
INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM
10-Q.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,687
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,601
<INVENTORY>                                     34,764
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,908
<PP&E>                                          91,693
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,904
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 331,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,601
<BONDS>                                        267,438
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           45,971
<PREFERRED>                                     44,924
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (93,698)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   331,699
<SALES>                                        210,487
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               210,487
<CGS>                                          126,960
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  126,960
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,688
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,410
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,025
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,385
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,385
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### C. D., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-940.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 31, 1978.

On Rehearing March 10, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Kurt Marmar, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arthur Joel Berger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, NATHAN and HUB-BART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

C.D., a juvenile, was charged by petition for delinquency with reckless driving under Section 316.029, Florida Statutes. He takes this appeal from an order finding that he committed the offense of reckless driving, withholding adjudication on that charge and placing him under the supervision of the Division of Youth Services. The sole issue is whether the charge of reckless driving was supported by substantial competent evidence.

Our review of the record indicates that the evidence presented was insufficient to support a finding that C.D. committed the offense of reckless driving. However, the record does, support a finding that he was guilty of careless driving under Section 316.030, Florida Statutes. Therefore, we affirm the order of the juvenile court insofar as it withholds adjudication and places C.D. under supervision, but we remand the cause to the juvenile court for modification of the order to reflect that C.D. was guilty of careless driving, not reckless driving.

Affirmed and remanded for modification.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

It appearing that under Rule 6.310 of the Florida Rules of Practice and Procedure for -Traffic Courts, careless driving1 is not a lesser included offense of reckless driving,2 therefore, upon consideration of the petition for rehearing filed by the appellant, our opinion is hereby modified by deleting the finding that C.D. was guilty of careless driving, and by reversing the order of the juvenile court finding C.D. guilty of reckless driving, withholding adjudication of delinquency and placing C.D. under supervision.

It is so ordered.

1

. Section 316.030, Florida Statutes.

2

. Section 316.029, Florida Statutes.
#### James H. PRICE v. Voyle C. JOHNSON.

No. 38718.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 16, 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 222 So.2d 211.
# C_2022303EN.01004601.xml

| 8.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/46

---

Order of the General Court of 14 June 2022 — FJ and Others v EEAS

(Case T-246/21) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - EEAS staff posted to a third country - Interim update of correction coefficients - Manifest error of assessment - Retroactive effect - Legal certainty - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 303/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FJ and the 6 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. Maes, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of their pay slips for the month of July 2020 drawn up by the European External Action Service (EEAS), by which it was decided to apply, for the first time, the correction coefficients fixed with retroactive effect from 1 October 2019 and 1 January 2020.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | FJ and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

FJ and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

---