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

##  

**Section 302Certification**

 

I, Patrick M. Fox,certify that:

 

1.    I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Seneca Gaming Corporation;

 

2.    Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.    Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)          Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)         Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented 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)          Discussedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)          Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date:  February 14,  2008 | /s/ Patrick M. Fox            |
|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                                | Patrick M. Fox                |
|                                | Chief Financial Officer       |
|                                | (Principal Financial Officer) |

 

 

----
```

[Federal Register: June 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 113)]
[Notices]               
[Page 33659]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14jn10-90]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 
ITS Joint Program Office; IntelliDrive\SM\ Safety Workshop; 
Notice of Workshop

AGENCY: Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ITS Joint Program Office will hold a three-day workshop to 
present and discuss IntelliDrive\SM\ safety technical and policy 
research roadmaps. The workshop will be held on July 20-22, 2010, at 
the Hilton Chicago Northbrook, 2855 North Milwaukee Avenue, Northbrook, 
Illinois 60062.
    The first day of the workshop will provide a detailed discussion of 
the technical research activities within the major IntelliDrive safety 
program initiatives. Days two and three will focus on the policy issues 
as well as policy vs. technical trade-offs with a focus on the Vehicle 
to Vehicle (V2V) environment. This workshop is for all parties 
interested in IntelliDrive safety-related activities. There will be a 
free webinar available for the July 20 presentations only.
    Following is the preliminary workshop agenda: Day one; IntelliDrive 
Safety Program Roadmaps and discussion (V2V, Safety Pilot, DSRC Device 
Certification, Vehicle to Infrastructure Safety, and Human Factors for 
IntelliDrive). Day two; IntelliDrive Policy Roadmaps with a focus on 
reaching the V2V 2013 regulatory decision milestone. Day three; 
Continuation of policy discussion and break-out sessions on key V2V 
policy tropics.
    Additional information, including registration details may be found 
at the ITS JPO Web site: http://www.its.dot.gov/press/2010/intellidrive_safety_workshop.htm.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on the 8th day of June 2010.
John Augustine,
Managing Director, ITS Joint Program Office.
[FR Doc. 2010-14162 Filed 6-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-HY-P
```
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00375-CR

DAVID ALLEN RUSSELL

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

199th District Court of Collin County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 199-81329-2012

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 9, 2015
Exhibit 31.1








I, Susan B. Sheffield, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of GM Financial Automobile Leasing Trust 2022-1  (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and Computershare Trust Company, N.A.








By:/s/ Susan B. SheffieldName:Susan B. SheffieldTitle:Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:March 3, 2023
cgc-ex109_1345.htm



Exhibit 10.9

 

CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION 

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION TABLE

As of March 31, 2022

The directors1 of Canopy Growth Corporation received the following applicable fees and restricted share units (“RSUs”) as previously recommended by the Corporate Governance, Compensation and Nominating Committee (“CGCN Committee”) and approved by the Board:


		
	
FY2022 Fees
	
Annual Amount ($)

	
Board of Directors Chair Retainer
	
225,000

	
Annual RSU Grants to Board of Directors Chair
	
225,000

	
Board Retainer
	
150,000

	
Annual RSU Grants to Non-Chair Board Members
	
150,000

	
Audit Committee Chair Retainer
	
30,000

	
Audit Committee Member Retainer
	
15,000

	
CGCN Committee Chair Retainer
	
30,000

	
CGCN Committee Member Retainer
	
15,000





1David Klein, Robert Hanson, William Newlands, Garth Hankinson, and Jim Sabia did not receive board or committee fees or RSU grants during FY2022.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00186-CR

Robert Tyler Best

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1314929D)

April 9, 2015

Opinion by Chief Justice Livingston

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Terrie Livingston

 Chief Justice Terrie Livingston
AAM-12-316-E 

April 24, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10514 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0401 

Mr. Douglas M. Forest 

Manager 

International Helicopter Services, LLC 

1940 Airport Road 

Great Falls, MT 59404 

Dear Mr. Forest: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated April 11, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of International Helicopter Services, LLC (IHS) for an exemption from part 120 of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow IHS to cover 

its safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to IHS. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two drug and alcohol testing 

programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of 

safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was 

unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant International Helicopter Services, LLC an exemption from 

14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow IHS to cover its safety-sensitive employees 

under one drug and alcohol testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations 

described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of IHS are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while 

conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of 

the IHS part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Orsus Xelent Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Guoji Liu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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





Date: August 22, 2011
/s/ Guoji LiuGuoji LiuChief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Orsus Xelent Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Guoji Liu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Date: May  22, 2011/s/ Guoji LiuGuoji LiuChief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00123-CV

John Hawkins

v.

Angela Myers

§

§

§

§

§

From the 158th District Court

of Denton County 

(2012-20790-158)

April 9, 2015

Opinion of Justice Gabriel

JUDGMENT ON REHEARING

After reviewing appellant John Hawkins’s motion for rehearing, we granted

the motion on March 3, 2015. We withdraw our December 31, 2014 opinion and 

judgment and submit the following. 

This court has again considered the record on appeal in this case. We 

reverse the trial court’s sanctions order and the trial court’s order granting 

summary judgment in favor of Angela Myers and the case is remanded to the 

trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is further ordered that appellee Angela Myers shall bear the costs of this 

appeal, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
C^j4t>\ SHlUvri '__

K^VtgK-Konfe^ D»sc^.Arr>n^&y fie^W) No^'o-i^-oag^is-cfi

lSa3& QaufcV- &£ C& <v>> aa^ JWflCxAj

J^AJQ^:bJO_y_2i^

preypnnni

ferau v3 i=3

-eewTof criminalappeals

MS-^} AERjO^OH

m^A€08ti,C(8fk
Equipment Operator Activitiy Process Ref.

Part II, Section A. 1(d) 

NCS TS-10KK7G MANUFACTURING

Redacted
EPA # 4159 Received: March 14, 2011EPA # 4159 Received: March 14, 2011EPA # 4159 Received: March 14, 2011
Compliance & Enforcement/Appeals Summary

Reporting Period: FY 2015

Want to become an organic insider?

Sign up to receive email updates from the NOP: http://bit.ly/NOPOrganicInsider

COMPLIANCE & ENFORCEMENT: OVERALL SUMMARY

Incoming Complaints: 549

Completed Complaints: 390

APPEALS: OVERALL SUMMARY (Refer to NOP 4011: Adverse Action Appeal Process for more information)

Number of Incoming: 36

Appeals by Disposition

Decisions 15

Dismissals 8

Closures 4

Note: Total reflects appeals closed in FY 2015 regardless of when cases were initiated.

SUMMARY OF INITIAL ACTIONS TAKEN

Cease & Desist Orders 36

Notices of Warning 121

Investigation Referrals 64

SUMMARY OF DISPOSITIONS (All NOP)

Total Number of Settlement Agreements * 13

Total Amount Civil Penalties Levied ** $1,872,815

Notes:

 * In FY15, not all settlement agreements include civil penalties and not all civil penalties were levied via settlement 

agreements.

** Total reflects the amount of penalties initially levied. Amounts may change during negotiation of settlements and 

individual penalty payments may be outstanding.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS NOTES

1. The NOP prevailed in a formal administrative complaint proceeding to suspend land owned by operation

Ernest D. Miller, d/b/a Stoney-M Farm, from organic certification for a period of three years due to the 

application of a prohibited substance.

2. Through a consent decision and order, the NOP suspended the accreditation of certifying agent The Organic 

Food Chain for two years for willful violation of the USDA organic regulations.

12
​

**Exhibit 35.1**

**Servicer Compliance Statement of John Deere Capital Corporation**

​

I, Katrin Watkins, Assistant Secretary of John Deere Capital Corporation, state:

​

A review of John Deere Capital Corporation’s activities for the period from October 30, 2023 through October 27, 2024 (the “Reporting Period”) and of John Deere Capital Corporation’s performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 20, 2022 among John Deere Capital Corporation, John Deere Receivables LLC and John Deere Owner Trust 2022-B has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge based on such review, John Deere Capital Corporation has fulfilled all its obligations under all relevant agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

​

​

| ​                | ​                        | ​              |
|------------------------|--------------------------------|----------------------|
| Date: January 10, 2025 | John Deere Capital Corporation |
| ​                | ​                        | ​              |
| ​                | By:                            | */s/ Katrin Watkins* |
| ​                | ​                        | Katrin Watkins       |
| ​                | ​                        | Assistant Secretary  |
| ​                | ​                        | ​              |
| ​                | ​                        | ​              |
|                        | ​                        | ​              |

​

​

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                     0000011027
<NAME>                      Carlyle Industries, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                       USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1
<CASH>                                           433
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,301
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    4,488
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              12,054
<PP&E>                                         3,714
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,116
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                18,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,490
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                    4,567
<COMMON>                                      (4,251)
<OTHER-SE>                                         0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  18,512
<SALES>                                       28,889
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              28,889
<CGS>                                         15,887
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 15,887
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               8,234
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               753
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,015
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (1,477)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,538
<DISCONTINUED>                                 1,544
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                3,011
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                   6,482
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.66


</TABLE>
#### James Lee LIVINGSTON, Petitioner Pro Se, v. The STATE of Oklahoma et al., Respondent.

No. H-80-488.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Aug. 5, 1980.

*1119ORDER DENYING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner has sought a writ of habeas corpus from this Court to provide him relief from his conviction for Robbery With Firearms, Case No. CRF-74-3025, Oklahoma County. That conviction was affirmed by this Court in *Bennett and Livingston v. State,*Okl.Cr., 546 P.2d 659 (1976), but his sentence was modified from two hundred and fifty (250) years to life imprisonment.

Petitioner, who is no stranger to this Court, now alleges that the modification of his sentence by this Court in *Bennett and Livingston v. State, supra,*was in abrogation of his due process rights in light of the recent United States Supreme Court decision in *Hicks v.*State, - U.S. -, 100 S.Ct. 2227, 65 L.Ed.2d 175 (1980). *Hicks*was concerned with a sentence imposed under 21 O.S.Supp.1978, § 51(B), whereas the Bennett and Livingston opinion involved a sentence imposed by a jury who had been exposed to prejudicial prosecutorial comments.

This Court finds that the *Hicks*decision does not affect the authority of this Court to modify sentences in accordance with 22 O.S.1971, § 1066. The writ of habeas corpus prayed for is, therefore, DENIED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS and the Seal of this Court, this 5th day of August, 1980.

TOM R. CORNISH, P. J.

TOM BRETT, J.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-075-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)