alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 12.1****CERTIFICATIONS**          I, Kunihiko Sakioka, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of NIS Group Co., Ltd. (the “Company”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company 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 Company, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annualreport that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date:September 28, 2007      **NIS GROUP CO., LTD.**
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 26, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearin g.

________________ No. 3D18-700 Lower Tribunal No. 08-409-K

________________ 

### Bank of New York, etc., Appellant,

vs. 

### Peter W. Obermeyer, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Mo nroe County, Bonnie J. Helms, Judge. DeLuca Law Group, PLLC, and Shawn Taylor (Fort Lauderdale), fo r appellant. Gregg Horowitz (Sarasota), for appellees.

Before EMAS, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ. LOGUE, J.2 In this foreclosure case, Bank of New York appeals the trial c ourt’s order denying its verified Motion to Vacate Order of Sanctions filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. We affirm. Trial was set in this case on three different dates, April 28, 2014, July 10, 2014, and December 12, 2014. Each time, the borrowers’ counsel drove from his office in Sarasota to the Key West courthouse in Monroe County. Each time, the Bank inexplicably failed to appear. The case was dismissed with out prejudice on December 16, 2014, and that order was not appealed. Meanwhile, the borrowers moved for sanctions in the form of cos ts and attorney’s fees including the time expended by their counsel in driving from Sarasota to Key West for the trials that the Bank failed to attend. The Bank also failed to attend the hearing on that motion. Not surprisingly, the motion was granted. The Bank subsequently moved under rule 1.540(b) to vacate the sanct ions order and costs, which the trial court denied. The Bank timely appeals. Having carefully reviewed the arguments of the parties, includi ng the arguments in the Bank’s late-filed initial brief, we find nothi ng improper or illegal in the trial court’s decision to require the payment of the bor rower’s counsel travel costs in addition to the usual costs and fees in these unusual circumstances. See Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 132 So. 3 d 858, 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting Eve’s Garden, Inc. v. Upshaw & Upshaw, Inc., 801 So. 2d 976,3 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (“Although travel time is generally not compensable, travel time may be awarded as part of a sanction under certain circums tances, such as where a party was aware that his actions could result in unnece ssary litigation.”)); see, e.g., Consultech of Jacksonville, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health, 876 So. 2d 731, 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (finding no abuse of discretion in an attor ney’s fees award of travel time as a sanction for failure to attend a deposition). Affirmed.
#### EAST AND MOUNT HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. SOUTH TEXAS LUMBER COMPANY, Respondent.

No. A-4839.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 20, 1954.

Ernest A. Knipp, Houston, for petitioner.

Platt, West & Stevenson, Houston, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Our petitioner, East and Mount Houston Independent School District, sought as plaintiff to collect ad valorem taxes on mineral interests of the defendant-respondent, South Texas Lumber Company, and has lost in both the trial court and Court of Civil Appeals. 269 S.W.2d 692.

The respondent’s defense was that the valuations underlying the taxes in question, which were several times the more or less nominal values rendered by the respondent, were based, not on market values, but on an arbitrary formula, applied alike to all producing oil properties and consisting of the estimated daily production of the leasehold in question multiplied by an arbitrary, fixed dollar-per-barrel factor, which presumably would translate daily production into dollar value of the leasehold interest, the latter valuation being in turn the basis of royalty valuations arrived at by applying fixed and arbitrary fractions to it according to the extent of the royalty to be valued.

The position of the petitioner is that, even assuming correctness of- the trial court’s findings and conclusions to the effect that the valuations were due to an arbitrary formula, the evidence, nevertheless, failed to show that this resulted in an excessive valuation or other true prejudice to the respondent taxpayer. In this connection, it appears from the findings that no evidence as to value (with the possible exception of the above-mentioned production figures and formula calculations therefrom) was introduced at the trial, nor does the respondent deny the petitioner’s statement that respondent presented no evi*796dence of value at the hearing before the Board of Equalization. No finding or conclusion, of the trial court suggests substantial injury to respondent in the actual valuation reached, however arbitrary may have been the method of reaching it. The petitioner, of course, made a prima facie case by introducing the relevant assessment .sheets and other official documents reflecting assessment and levy of the taxes in suit.

Under these circumstances we have held as- late as State v. Whittenburg, 153 Tex. -, 265 S.W.2d 569, that the attack on the •valuation is unavailing. -The judgments below being in conflict with that decision, we conclude to reverse them upon the mere application for writ of error. Rule 483, Tex.R.Civ.Proc. In the exercise of our discretion as to whether justice will be better served by a remand or rendition, we conclude further to remand the .cause for another trial. It- is so ordered.
Exhibit 11

                           THE STRIDE RITE CORPORATION
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                      (In Thousands except Per Share Data)


                                   May 28,      May 29,     May 28,     May 29,
                                     1999        1998        1999        1998
                                   ---------  ----------   ---------  ---------
Net income applicable to common
shares                              $ 9,763     $ 9,596    $15,912     $13,997
                                    =======     =======     ======     =======


Calculation of shares:

   Weighted average number of
   common shares outstanding
   (basic)                           46,422      47,275     46,408      47,282

   Common shares  attributable to
    assumed exercise of dilutive
    stock options and stock
    purchase rights using the
    treasury stock method               418         380        277         329
                                     ------     -------     ------     -------

Average common shares and common
   equivalents outstanding during
   the period (diluted)              46,840      47,655     46,685      47,611
                                     ======      ======     ======      ======

Net income per common share
 (basic)                              $ .21     $   .20    $   .34       $ .30
                                      =====      ======     ======       =====

Net income per common share
 (diluted)                            $ .21       $ .20      $ .34       $ .29
                                      =====       =====      =====       =====



















                                      19

<PAGE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 30, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 30, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A25I0035. THE CITY OF VIDALIA, GEORGIA v. AMY WADE JOHNSON.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

23SV00052
|KPMGLLP               |           |                |             | 
|--------------------- | --------- | -------------- | ----------- | 
|Chartered Accountants | Telephone | (403) 691-8000 |            
|200-205 5 Avenue SW   | Fax       | (403) 691-8008 |            
|Calgary AB            | T2P 4B9   | Internet       | www.kpmg.ca | 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the use of our audit report dated March 17, 2005 except notes 2(h), 3, 8, 12, 14 which are at March 20, 2006 on the amended consolidated balance sheets of Paramount Energy Trust as at December 31, 2004 and 2003 and the amended consolidated statements of earnings and accumulated earnings and cash flows for each of the years then ended, our audit report dated March 20, 2006 on the amended reconciliation of financial statements to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, and our Comments for U.S. Readers on Canada-U.S. Reporting Differences, all of which are included in this annual report on Form 40-F/A of the Trust for the year ended December 31, 2004.



Chartered Accountants

Calgary, Canada March 20, 2006

KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership is the Canadian member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.

---
| Subsidiaries’ or Affiliate’s Name                                                 |         | Jurisdiction of Incorporation orOrganization |         | Percentage of Ownership |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------------|-----------------------------------|
| Bodisen Holdings, Inc. (“BHI”)                                                              |         | Delaware                                                    |         | 100% by Bodisen Biotech, Inc.     |
|                                                                                                         |         |                                                        |         |                              |
| Yang Ling Bodisen Agricultural Technology Co. Ltd. (“Bodisen Agriculture”)                  |         | PRC                                                         |         | 100% by Bodisen Biotech, Inc.     |
|                                                                                                         |         |                                                        |         |                              |
| Yang Ling Bodisen Biology Science and Technology Development Company Limited (“Yang Ling”)  |         | PRC                                                         |         | 100% by Bodisen Agriculture       |
|                                                                                                         |         |                                                        |         |                              |
| Xinjiang Bodisen Agriculture Material Co. Ltd.                                                          |    | PRC                                                         |    | 100% by Yang Ling                 |

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of StockerYale, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark W.
Blodgett, President and 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 to my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Mark W. Blodgett                 
|Mark W. Blodgett                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                     
|August 14, 2008
iN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 

JASON LEE VAN DYKE, § 

PLAINTIFF, § 

§ 

V. § 

§ 

THOMAS CHRISTOPHER RETZLAFF § 

A/KIA DEAN ANDERSON DIB/A § 

BV FILES, VIA VIEW FILES L.L.C., § 

AND VIAVIEW FILES, § 

DEFENDANTS. § 

20 J -6 M tO: 2 

CL 

CAUSE NO. 1 :20-MC-657-LY 

(CASE NO. 4:1 8-CV-24-ALM, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

TEXAS, SHERMAN DIVISION) 

Before the court is Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal to District Judge filed July 1, 2020 

(Doc. #26), specifically appealing Section III of United States Magistrate Judge Mark Lane's Order 

rendered June 1, 2020 (Doc. #25), denying Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and Motion for Sanctions, 

which were referred to the magistrate judge for resolution pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 63 6(b)( 1 )(A), 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(c) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United 

States District Court for the Western District of Texas, as amended. 

After considering Plaintiff's objections, the magistrate judge's order, and the case file, this 

court finds that the magistrate's denial of Plaintiff's motions was proper and concludes that the 

objections raised in Plaintiff's appeal should be overruled. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(a); Rule 4 of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Texas; Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 3 85-86 (5th Cir. 1995). Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal to District Judge filed July 1, 2020 

(Doc. #26) is OVERRULED. 

Case 1:20-mc-00657-LY Document 28 Filed 07/06/20 Page 1 of 2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's July 1, 2020 Order (Doe. #225) 

is AFFIRMED. 

SIGNED this day of July, 2020. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:20-mc-00657-LY Document 28 Filed 07/06/20 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2743 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2743

    To make the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass 
              available at a discount to certain veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 18, 2013

  Mr. Nugent introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on 
Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To make the National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass 
              available at a discount to certain veterans.

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

SECTION 1. VETERANS EAGLE PASSPORT.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Eagle 
Parks Pass Act''.
    (b) Veterans Eagle Parks Pass.--Section 805(b) of division J of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (16 U.S.C. 6804(b); 118 Stat. 
3386), is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) Veterans discount.--The Secretary shall make the 
        National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass available, 
        at a cost of $10, for any veteran who was separated from 
        military service under conditions other than dishonorable, if 
        the veteran provides proof of that status by presenting a 
        DD214. The National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass 
        made available under this paragraph shall be valid for the life 
        of the veteran for whom it was purchased.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2827 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2827

   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow for fair 
application of the exceptions process for drugs in tiers in formularies 
           in prescription drug plans under Medicare part D.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 2013

 Mr. Johnson of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Jones, Mr. McKinley, and Mr. 
 Braley of Iowa) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 
 on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow for fair 
application of the exceptions process for drugs in tiers in formularies 
           in prescription drug plans under Medicare part D.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Part D Beneficiary Appeals Fairness 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FAIR EXCEPTIONS PROCESS FOR DRUG IN TIERS UNDER MEDICARE PART 
              D.

    Section 1860D-4(g)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
103(g)(2)) is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence--
                    (A) by striking ``for tiered cost-sharing for drugs 
                included within a formulary and'' and inserting ``for 
                any tiered cost-sharing structure within a formulary 
                (including a structure that''; and
                    (B) by inserting ``, or provides for different co-
                payment or coinsurance amounts for drugs in different 
                tiers included within the formulary)'' before ``, a 
                part D eligible individual'';
            (2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``in any plan 
        formulary'' before ``could be covered''; and
            (3) by inserting the following before the last sentence: 
        ``In no case may the Secretary allow a PDP sponsor to make any 
        formulary tier of the tiered cost-sharing structure (including 
        a formulary tier used for very high cost or unique items) 
        ineligible for lower-cost sharing through an exception under 
        this paragraph.''.
                                 <all>
```
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
214 N.Tryon Street Suite 3600
Charlotte NC 28202
Telephone (704) 344 7500 Facsimile (704) 344 4100

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of Bank of America, N.A.
We have examined management's assertion about compliance by BA
Mortgage, LLC and the Mortgage division of Bank of America, N.A.
(collectively, the "Company"), which together comprise an
operating division of Bank of America, N.A., with the minimum servicing
standards (the "Standards") identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association
of America's Uniform Single Attestation Pro2fam for Mortgage Bankers
("USAP") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 included
in the accompanying management assertion (see Exhibit 1).
Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the
Standards.

Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assertion about the Company's compliance based on
our examination.
Our examination was made in accordance with standards established
by the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the Standards and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the Standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied
with the aforementioned Standards as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2002 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

March 7, 2003

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
-------------------------------

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP